Tokenizer: arg_mining/smlm_pretrained_iter5_0/tokenizer/ Model: arg_mining/smlm_pretrained_iter5_0/model/
	Train size: 80 Test size: 20


		-------------RUN 1-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6146496815286624, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9948453608247423, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7598425196850392, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6012461059190031, 'recall': 0.6012461059190031, 'f1': 0.6012461059190031, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.12292993630573248, 'recall': 0.19896907216494847, 'f1': 0.15196850393700784, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.3714705240391293, 'recall': 0.6012461059190031, 'f1': 0.4592194667255377, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Toaster killing himself for the master
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably would yeah. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe money goes to the state<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe boss owns the factory where the workers work
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I don't know man, raising a child is hard. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNetworking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidamericans are better because of the side of the line they are born on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUniversalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChristianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDecisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnce we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8305084745762712, 'agreement': 0.3333333333333333, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.19083969465648856}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6314432989690721, 'agreement': 0.5060240963855421, 'direct_attack': 0.26785714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.6756756756756757}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7174231332357247, 'agreement': 0.4019138755980861, 'direct_attack': 0.20547945205479448, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.29761904761904767}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5093457943925234, 'recall': 0.5093457943925234, 'f1': 0.5093457943925234, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3042696338465519, 'recall': 0.4162000427774865, 'f1': 0.3244871017015306, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.570558188221002, 'recall': 0.5093457943925234, 'f1': 0.5206195972695882, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou so make a good point about the sexual energy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think that's still largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey seriously put the time in to think about it
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seriously strains credulity to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Cheating isn't just a single mistake though. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPerhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople thought the exact same thing before WWI. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI definitely agree with it
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8521739130434782, 'agreement': 0.72, 'direct_attack': 0.14367816091954022, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24, 'partial': 0.42105263157894735}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5051546391752577, 'agreement': 0.21686746987951808, 'direct_attack': 0.44642857142857145, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5384615384615384, 'partial': 0.43243243243243246}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6343042071197411, 'agreement': 0.3333333333333333, 'direct_attack': 0.21739130434782605, 'undercutter_attack': 0.33201581027667987, 'partial': 0.4266666666666667}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.46261682242990654, 'recall': 0.46261682242990654, 'f1': 0.46261682242990654, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4753809411083932, 'recall': 0.42786893027546363, 'f1': 0.3887422643488494, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6740629324622815, 'recall': 0.46261682242990654, 'f1': 0.5103341307489909, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAt this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ]<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnother thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTelling my government to send help is easier said than done. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for money<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo they should not. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidin the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou didn't exist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said[paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your original post had a very different tone to it however. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidon principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey couldn't just survive together
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7494199535962877, 'agreement': 0.6451612903225806, 'direct_attack': 0.23809523809523808, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21487603305785125, 'partial': 0.29411764705882354}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8324742268041238, 'agreement': 0.24096385542168675, 'direct_attack': 0.17857142857142858, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.13513513513513514}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7887667887667887, 'agreement': 0.3508771929824561, 'direct_attack': 0.20408163265306123, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2613065326633166, 'partial': 0.18518518518518517}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5981308411214953, 'recall': 0.5981308411214953, 'f1': 0.5981308411214953, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.42833403242615625, 'recall': 0.3440955958531415, 'f1': 0.3580434664501616, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6001547444628598, 'recall': 0.5981308411214953, 'f1': 0.582284507612492, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidJoseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidrushing/missing the damn point of the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidShitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFair enough
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBasically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAgriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said 55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7647058823529411, 'agreement': 0.5, 'direct_attack': 0.25925925925925924, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2909090909090909, 'partial': 0.4117647058823529}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8354755784061697, 'agreement': 0.3855421686746988, 'direct_attack': 0.38181818181818183, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20512820512820512, 'partial': 0.1891891891891892}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7985257985257984, 'agreement': 0.435374149659864, 'direct_attack': 0.30882352941176466, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24060150375939848, 'partial': 0.2592592592592593}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 55, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6246105919003115, 'recall': 0.6246105919003115, 'f1': 0.6246105919003115, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4453277876807288, 'recall': 0.3994306646432889, 'f1': 0.408516848123217, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6092773375437842, 'recall': 0.6246105919003115, 'f1': 0.6107591807660079, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Eugenics is not realistically feasible
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the number of them isn't the question - the severity is. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You are correct, 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saiddegrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou are correct that this is false. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe only issue with that is it's very subjective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome users may like it, others may not. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidjust because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7517899761336515, 'agreement': 0.41935483870967744, 'direct_attack': 0.3, 'undercutter_attack': 0.34375, 'partial': 0.3888888888888889}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8118556701030928, 'agreement': 0.46987951807228917, 'direct_attack': 0.16071428571428573, 'undercutter_attack': 0.28205128205128205, 'partial': 0.3783783783783784}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7806691449814126, 'agreement': 0.4431818181818182, 'direct_attack': 0.20930232558139533, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3098591549295775, 'partial': 0.3835616438356164}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6214953271028038, 'recall': 0.6214953271028038, 'f1': 0.6214953271028038, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.44075674074644355, 'recall': 0.42057582686386563, 'f1': 0.425314817501964, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.598913319691042, 'recall': 0.6214953271028038, 'f1': 0.6071112839577291, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said whilst my original view still stands
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidim 20 years old
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHowever, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFeels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said, or <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChristianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI return to it permanently
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course not
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore passed down by parents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm straight. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWaging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think is flawed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWithout the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7731958762886598, 'agreement': 0.422680412371134, 'direct_attack': 0.2328767123287671, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.5238095238095238}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7731958762886598, 'agreement': 0.4939759036144578, 'direct_attack': 0.30357142857142855, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2692307692307692, 'partial': 0.2972972972972973}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7731958762886598, 'agreement': 0.45555555555555555, 'direct_attack': 0.2635658914728682, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2978723404255319, 'partial': 0.37931034482758624}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6074766355140186, 'recall': 0.6074766355140186, 'f1': 0.6074766355140186, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4571791716262836, 'recall': 0.4274542550005226, 'f1': 0.4339000017140403, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6129353932993263, 'recall': 0.6074766355140186, 'f1': 0.6072263650239937, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said View. Changed. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBeyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'l begin by saying it has never happened to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidgiven the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSociety might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe're not dependent on our technology to survive. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidgiving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHowever the far-right continues to be a menace. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8270440251572327, 'agreement': 0.39603960396039606, 'direct_attack': 0.37037037037037035, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2621951219512195, 'partial': 0.5}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6760925449871465, 'agreement': 0.4819277108433735, 'direct_attack': 0.17857142857142858, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5584415584415584, 'partial': 0.43243243243243246}, 'f1': {'support': 0.743988684582744, 'agreement': 0.4347826086956522, 'direct_attack': 0.24096385542168672, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35684647302904565, 'partial': 0.463768115942029}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 77, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5794392523364486, 'recall': 0.5794392523364486, 'f1': 0.5794392523364486, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4711298242878438, 'recall': 0.46549313505518786, 'f1': 0.4480699475342315, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6448928006944876, 'recall': 0.5794392523364486, 'f1': 0.5975531611232595, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's worth it dammit! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for money
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said[47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthis doesn't say anything about christianity
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNative intelligence is the challenge. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidno you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is why you see so many older people in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYour OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said 4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Best regimen just depends on your goals<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's either the extreme left, or the extreme right. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7692307692307693, 'agreement': 0.43023255813953487, 'direct_attack': 0.2916666666666667, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3404255319148936, 'partial': 0.5142857142857142}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7969151670951157, 'agreement': 0.45121951219512196, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.41025641025641024, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7828282828282829, 'agreement': 0.44047619047619047, 'direct_attack': 0.17500000000000002, 'undercutter_attack': 0.37209302325581395, 'partial': 0.5}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 82, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6292834890965732, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6292834890965732, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4691682480475158, 'recall': 0.4539755152066268, 'f1': 0.45407949931205743, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6174843228185009, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6198792919831825, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't see a problem with that
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is almost just a semantic argument. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese groups are always extreme fringes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7673267326732673, 'agreement': 0.4470588235294118, 'direct_attack': 0.30434782608695654, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3473684210526316, 'partial': 0.4857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7969151670951157, 'agreement': 0.4578313253012048, 'direct_attack': 0.12727272727272726, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7818411097099622, 'agreement': 0.4523809523809524, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38150289017341044, 'partial': 0.47222222222222227}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 55, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6308411214953271, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6308411214953271, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4703632178113105, 'recall': 0.4529111204410861, 'f1': 0.45348687079474537, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6190051046902783, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6211605190846378, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's also a product of individual stupidity, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow can he prove he's a firefighter? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said end up generating even more waste
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I see what you're getting at. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ), <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ), 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidthe reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7648514851485149, 'agreement': 0.44047619047619047, 'direct_attack': 0.3181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35051546391752575, 'partial': 0.4857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.794344473007712, 'agreement': 0.45121951219512196, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4358974358974359, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7793190416141236, 'agreement': 0.44578313253012053, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38857142857142857, 'partial': 0.47222222222222227}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 82, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6292834890965732, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6292834890965732, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.47194784868766704, 'recall': 0.4531841761119459, 'f1': 0.4530766008850149, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.618031295820868, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6192233641081616, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I misused patriots to mean nationalist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMeat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBeing the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's like playing poker with players who never bet
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI have a Masters degree. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida level of worth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7655860349127181, 'agreement': 0.4418604651162791, 'direct_attack': 0.30434782608695654, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35051546391752575, 'partial': 0.4857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7892030848329049, 'agreement': 0.4578313253012048, 'direct_attack': 0.12727272727272726, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4358974358974359, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7772151898734176, 'agreement': 0.4497041420118343, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38857142857142857, 'partial': 0.47222222222222227}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 55, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6277258566978193, 'recall': 0.6277258566978193, 'f1': 0.6277258566978193, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4696048151495531, 'recall': 0.4539328065527465, 'f1': 0.45344003243321646, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6176606719275339, 'recall': 0.6277258566978193, 'f1': 0.6188703133494241, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSince you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOn boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said And the cheater is the source of the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthis slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter you see the gun? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou are correct that this is false. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOnce ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidAs for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe squat is often referred to as one of the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidworks your legs and core quite hard
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7648514851485149, 'agreement': 0.43529411764705883, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35051546391752575, 'partial': 0.4857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.794344473007712, 'agreement': 0.45121951219512196, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4358974358974359, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7793190416141236, 'agreement': 0.4431137724550898, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38857142857142857, 'partial': 0.47222222222222227}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 82, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6292834890965732, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6292834890965732, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4739417371521437, 'recall': 0.4531841761119459, 'f1': 0.45300892933620923, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6186910386191486, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6190857451118743, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMany of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think its feasible, though... 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidJoseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWith absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that couldn't really be further from the truth. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMore intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidi. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPeople were looking from a few meters, not doing anything
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBest for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou are making the pussy very valuable. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidUnfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7617866004962779, 'agreement': 0.4431818181818182, 'direct_attack': 0.3181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35051546391752575, 'partial': 0.53125}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7912371134020618, 'agreement': 0.46987951807228917, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4358974358974359, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7762326169405817, 'agreement': 0.456140350877193, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38857142857142857, 'partial': 0.4927536231884059}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6292834890965732, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6292834890965732, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.480983140155488, 'recall': 0.4562947053662493, 'f1': 0.45863703981295767, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6186478658962548, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.619360813136413, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidShe's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLand before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think it would<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpremeditated murders could well be less likely, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnother thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTelling my government to send help is easier said than done. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhy should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidOnce we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthese versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.763681592039801, 'agreement': 0.449438202247191, 'direct_attack': 0.3181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35051546391752575, 'partial': 0.53125}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7912371134020618, 'agreement': 0.4819277108433735, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4358974358974359, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7772151898734176, 'agreement': 0.46511627906976744, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38857142857142857, 'partial': 0.4927536231884059}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6308411214953271, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6308411214953271, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.48261341527726714, 'recall': 0.45870434392046616, 'f1': 0.46062874003803983, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6206019727440941, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6211150815755471, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUnless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saide. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUniversalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thatands a good point
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCertainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said[It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ]
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel everyone is passionate about something<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhether it be math or psychology or medicine
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhat all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOften it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7665847665847666, 'agreement': 0.4659090909090909, 'direct_attack': 0.3684210526315789, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35051546391752575, 'partial': 0.5161290322580645}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8020565552699229, 'agreement': 0.4939759036144578, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4358974358974359, 'partial': 0.4444444444444444}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7839195979899498, 'agreement': 0.47953216374269003, 'direct_attack': 0.18666666666666668, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38857142857142857, 'partial': 0.4776119402985074}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 36}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6386292834890965, 'recall': 0.6386292834890965, 'f1': 0.6386292834890965, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.49351188126020534, 'recall': 0.4602748678452523, 'f1': 0.4632603594538486, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6283868520890257, 'recall': 0.6386292834890965, 'f1': 0.6272614140520012, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLike trust. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think it would
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidguides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably would yeah. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I don't think some of them would start killing
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidOne person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey certainly aren't hard to make
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidthe reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's why we recruit teens into the military
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwho gets to decide what being a moderate was
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou are doing 2 things
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7660098522167488, 'agreement': 0.47126436781609193, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.34375, 'partial': 0.5454545454545454}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7994858611825193, 'agreement': 0.4939759036144578, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7823899371069183, 'agreement': 0.4823529411764706, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3815028901734104, 'partial': 0.5142857142857143}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 77, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6386292834890965, 'recall': 0.6386292834890965, 'f1': 0.6386292834890965, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4952957530974772, 'recall': 0.4667039359709785, 'f1': 0.46894840181166064, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6282606592256529, 'recall': 0.6386292834890965, 'f1': 0.6278895063829385, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTHAT is the issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmy experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI certainly value our free speech
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause I want to know what older, more mature people think
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe wealth gap is a factor of ten worse
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7641277641277642, 'agreement': 0.4588235294117647, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3402061855670103, 'partial': 0.5454545454545454}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7994858611825193, 'agreement': 0.47560975609756095, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7814070351758795, 'agreement': 0.46706586826347307, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3771428571428572, 'partial': 0.5142857142857143}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 82, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6355140186915887, 'recall': 0.6355140186915887, 'f1': 0.6355140186915887, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.49172240491221697, 'recall': 0.461931805368698, 'f1': 0.4648224002367427, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6249020721394237, 'recall': 0.6355140186915887, 'f1': 0.6246545819944243, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm against killing. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI want them to be killed humanely
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey're statistically dumber than richer people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think I still have a lot to research<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Navy is a " denim and leather " bar
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNo ideal system is really going to be inefficient
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The facts definitively disprove SVT! 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it seems more capitalist than anything. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7654320987654321, 'agreement': 0.45977011494252873, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3402061855670103, 'partial': 0.5454545454545454}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7969151670951157, 'agreement': 0.4819277108433735, 'direct_attack': 0.12727272727272726, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7808564231738035, 'agreement': 0.4705882352941177, 'direct_attack': 0.18666666666666665, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3771428571428572, 'partial': 0.5142857142857143}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 55, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6355140186915887, 'recall': 0.6355140186915887, 'f1': 0.6355140186915887, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4921725889459033, 'recall': 0.4631358029549252, 'f1': 0.46590797931263184, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6259842782181121, 'recall': 0.6355140186915887, 'f1': 0.6254273412716547, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut this view is separate from the objective success of the series. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I see what you're getting at. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There are plenty of professions that do great things for society<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Doctors? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDifferent branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You are correct, 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7641277641277642, 'agreement': 0.47058823529411764, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3402061855670103, 'partial': 0.5454545454545454}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7994858611825193, 'agreement': 0.4819277108433735, 'direct_attack': 0.12727272727272726, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7814070351758795, 'agreement': 0.47619047619047616, 'direct_attack': 0.18666666666666665, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3771428571428572, 'partial': 0.5142857142857143}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 55, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6370716510903427, 'recall': 0.6370716510903427, 'f1': 0.6370716510903427, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.49407534608868753, 'recall': 0.4636499417724059, 'f1': 0.46713854989231873, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6265925614192477, 'recall': 0.6370716510903427, 'f1': 0.6264852447968965, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConsider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOnce ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It is a series of mistakes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidneighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest... 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidLastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLike it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Best regimen just depends on your goals<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7641277641277642, 'agreement': 0.47058823529411764, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3402061855670103, 'partial': 0.5454545454545454}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8015463917525774, 'agreement': 0.4819277108433735, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7823899371069183, 'agreement': 0.47619047619047616, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3771428571428572, 'partial': 0.5142857142857143}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6370716510903427, 'recall': 0.6370716510903427, 'f1': 0.6370716510903427, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.49407534608868753, 'recall': 0.4636075024318721, 'f1': 0.46684390220835104, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6259475025966189, 'recall': 0.6370716510903427, 'f1': 0.6259386431163432, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEither way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMatthew 2 : 11
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo they should not. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThose people are civilians with full civil rights
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNetworking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidassuming they all die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidall of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not UNDERSTAND. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWaging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmy point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidOne thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDecisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7641277641277642, 'agreement': 0.4642857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3402061855670103, 'partial': 0.5294117647058824}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8015463917525774, 'agreement': 0.46987951807228917, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7823899371069183, 'agreement': 0.46706586826347307, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3771428571428572, 'partial': 0.5070422535211269}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6355140186915887, 'recall': 0.6355140186915887, 'f1': 0.6355140186915887, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4896062857372742, 'recall': 0.4611978638776552, 'f1': 0.463570288470033, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6242081067533197, 'recall': 0.6355140186915887, 'f1': 0.6243415239477592, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe Marines aren't knows for their... Genius... <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA very good reminder, thank you
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It is a series of mistakes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saida lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAll when the clostest they've been to military life are
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidno you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBeyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said end up generating even more waste
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said either failing to get bad people or getting good people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7647058823529411, 'agreement': 0.4642857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.5294117647058824}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8020565552699229, 'agreement': 0.46987951807228917, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4155844155844156, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7829360100376412, 'agreement': 0.46706586826347307, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3699421965317919, 'partial': 0.5070422535211269}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 77, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6355140186915887, 'recall': 0.6355140186915887, 'f1': 0.6355140186915887, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.48834733893557425, 'recall': 0.45980139508262285, 'f1': 0.46223937093396444, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.62439439950435, 'recall': 0.6355140186915887, 'f1': 0.6244399952607861, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think it would<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpremeditated murders could well be less likely, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOne reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWith this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.762962962962963, 'agreement': 0.4642857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.5294117647058824}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7963917525773195, 'agreement': 0.46987951807228917, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7793190416141236, 'agreement': 0.46706586826347307, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3728813559322034, 'partial': 0.5070422535211269}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.632398753894081, 'recall': 0.632398753894081, 'f1': 0.632398753894081, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.48799875505757856, 'recall': 0.46016693604260367, 'f1': 0.4621038091293433, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6226691264944885, 'recall': 0.632398753894081, 'f1': 0.6219678408548691, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidalmost violent
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI appreciate you taking the time to comment
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCompanionship. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidShould young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said 4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidis an indication that there is a problem with the relationship
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey seriously put the time in to think about it
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about the relationship of a brother and sister? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNone. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Yes 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7641277641277642, 'agreement': 0.4578313253012048, 'direct_attack': 0.3684210526315789, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.5294117647058824}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7994858611825193, 'agreement': 0.4634146341463415, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7814070351758795, 'agreement': 0.46060606060606063, 'direct_attack': 0.18666666666666668, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3728813559322034, 'partial': 0.5070422535211269}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 82, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6339563862928349, 'recall': 0.6339563862928349, 'f1': 0.6339563862928349, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4906250480199527, 'recall': 0.4594927809784541, 'f1': 0.4617206743803875, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6246225594421887, 'recall': 0.6339563862928349, 'f1': 0.623108529796637, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it didn't solve much<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey've got their own lives to worry about
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOkay
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm sure with the right culture it would
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIsn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will die too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNot everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said That is probably one of the biggest reasons. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe squat is often referred to as one of the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs far as single lifts go
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnce we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.762962962962963, 'agreement': 0.4642857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.33, 'partial': 0.5151515151515151}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7963917525773195, 'agreement': 0.46987951807228917, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7793190416141236, 'agreement': 0.46706586826347307, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.37078651685393255, 'partial': 0.48571428571428577}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6308411214953271, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6308411214953271, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.48448003848003846, 'recall': 0.45476153063719826, 'f1': 0.45741924775232085, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6214422896821652, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6204841457505729, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ), <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ), 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidall of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPlayers who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidJoseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsociety upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnce we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel everyone is passionate about something<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhether it be math or psychology or medicine
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7623762376237624, 'agreement': 0.4642857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.33, 'partial': 0.5294117647058824}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7938144329896907, 'agreement': 0.46987951807228917, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4864864864864865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7777777777777777, 'agreement': 0.46706586826347307, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.37078651685393255, 'partial': 0.5070422535211269}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6308411214953271, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6308411214953271, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4872147433230718, 'recall': 0.4596514721250779, 'f1': 0.4613765885464199, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6219095479405791, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6207818473710571, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhy would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI am their 6th child. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it didn't solve much<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidPurchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidno, you don't. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidRemember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI called the ER
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs in never buying meat again
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ). 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they are trying to get americans to vote for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEducation
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUniversalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChristianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidour supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEvery middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saiddehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies... <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidlook at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidContrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7623762376237624, 'agreement': 0.4642857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32673267326732675, 'partial': 0.5151515151515151}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7938144329896907, 'agreement': 0.46987951807228917, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7777777777777777, 'agreement': 0.46706586826347307, 'direct_attack': 0.18421052631578946, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3687150837988827, 'partial': 0.48571428571428577}, 'support': {'support': 388, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6292834890965732, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6292834890965732, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.48370922806566374, 'recall': 0.4542460667196725, 'f1': 0.45669670837404175, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6206907306217938, 'recall': 0.6292834890965732, 'f1': 0.6193009959892082, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe boss owns the factory where the workers work
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMany of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Most interesting point so far. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter he starts shooting? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think networking is one of them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saiddegrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsmart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7654320987654321, 'agreement': 0.4691358024691358, 'direct_attack': 0.3684210526315789, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3173076923076923, 'partial': 0.5151515151515151}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7969151670951157, 'agreement': 0.4634146341463415, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4230769230769231, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7808564231738035, 'agreement': 0.4662576687116564, 'direct_attack': 0.18666666666666668, 'undercutter_attack': 0.36263736263736257, 'partial': 0.48571428571428577}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 82, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 78, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6308411214953271, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6308411214953271, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4870896322650708, 'recall': 0.45357323675556793, 'f1': 0.456426481380755, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6240878617292783, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6210229807467939, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor I will be dead and won't know what I did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou can create your own meaning. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMay as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said, or <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMaking an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAt what point do your rules against networking kick in? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidcertain Native American practices still have vestiges of this
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChristianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other * <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidShould young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsmart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidRadicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit would have been preferable to have our abortions alive
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople thought the exact same thing before WWI. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYour first paragraph is intriguing
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7654320987654321, 'agreement': 0.4691358024691358, 'direct_attack': 0.3684210526315789, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3173076923076923, 'partial': 0.5151515151515151}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7969151670951157, 'agreement': 0.4578313253012048, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.4594594594594595}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7808564231738035, 'agreement': 0.46341463414634143, 'direct_attack': 0.18666666666666668, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3646408839779005, 'partial': 0.48571428571428577}, 'support': {'support': 389, 'agreement': 83, 'direct_attack': 56, 'undercutter_attack': 77, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6308411214953271, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6308411214953271, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4870896322650708, 'recall': 0.4535554760854417, 'f1': 0.4562585787357996, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6243243541127074, 'recall': 0.6308411214953271, 'f1': 0.6210571233953522, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your original post had a very different tone to it however. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they were born on a different side of a line
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPersonally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe money goes to the state
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidUltimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidLearning seems hard or dumb to some kids<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said thats because its not tapping into their mind right
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThings need change. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhy would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think I still have a lot to research<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Navy is a " denim and leather " bar
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidLivestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou don't need millions of dollars<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about the unemployed? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLet's call it X. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')


		-------------RUN 2-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSatire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6188118811881188, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.09415584415584416, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.40584415584415584, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.6590909090909091, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.49019607843137253, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.16477272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.30196078431372547, 'recall': 0.30196078431372547, 'f1': 0.30196078431372547, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.1425935450687926, 'recall': 0.21298701298701297, 'f1': 0.13099376114081995, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.3818370912721524, 'recall': 0.30196078431372547, 'f1': 0.3102556708958093, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGeography certainly has to be part of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no afterlife
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell we have the benefit of history. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo did they. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think this isn't ALWAYS true. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI get your point
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFirst, take criminal law. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; ) 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIndeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAt the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidThis is where we disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI see what you mean
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidProbably not. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhen I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm showing some of what I truly believe. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.9345794392523364, 'agreement': 0.4830508474576271, 'direct_attack': 0.038461538461538464, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'partial': 0.08411214953271028}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6493506493506493, 'agreement': 0.6263736263736264, 'direct_attack': 0.022727272727272728, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2702702702702703, 'partial': 0.3}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7662835249042146, 'agreement': 0.5454545454545454, 'direct_attack': 0.028571428571428574, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24390243902439024, 'partial': 0.1313868613138686}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5431372549019607, 'recall': 0.5431372549019607, 'f1': 0.5431372549019607, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3524852393852869, 'recall': 0.37374436374436376, 'f1': 0.3431197598536895, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6749921349193625, 'recall': 0.5431372549019607, 'f1': 0.5879898593084766, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI did do the completionist run! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHowever, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida handful of people make the world a much nastier place
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidneighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWell, real estate could certainly be one. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Businesses are and should be designed to be effective. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnly the rich could afford to be pale. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Toaster killing himself for the master
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.9105691056910569, 'agreement': 0.5975609756097561, 'direct_attack': 0.08, 'undercutter_attack': 0.345679012345679, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7272727272727273, 'agreement': 0.5384615384615384, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.7567567567567568, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8086642599277979, 'agreement': 0.5664739884393063, 'direct_attack': 0.1111111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.47457627118644063, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6058823529411764, 'recall': 0.6058823529411764, 'f1': 0.6058823529411764, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3867618187292984, 'recall': 0.4408618408618409, 'f1': 0.3921651261329312, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6885165819414185, 'recall': 0.6058823529411764, 'f1': 0.6334626194676978, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's a little creep tbh
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidreducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthis isn't really a good example
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidVegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI completely understand your distaste with the IQ test. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHe can't test enough units on his own. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidamericans are better because of the side of the line they are born on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8601823708206687, 'agreement': 0.6176470588235294, 'direct_attack': 0.3620689655172414, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5263157894736842, 'partial': 0.2222222222222222}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9188311688311688, 'agreement': 0.46153846153846156, 'direct_attack': 0.4772727272727273, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2702702702702703, 'partial': 0.26666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8885400313971744, 'agreement': 0.5283018867924528, 'direct_attack': 0.411764705882353, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35714285714285715, 'partial': 0.2424242424242424}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7137254901960784, 'recall': 0.7137254901960784, 'f1': 0.7137254901960784, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5176872813714692, 'recall': 0.4789158589158589, 'f1': 0.48563474472781587, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7121832116189386, 'recall': 0.7137254901960784, 'f1': 0.7065695321848616, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou didn't exist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think this isn't ALWAYS true. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat's where supply and demand are involved<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis value may not be the price being charged for the thing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIdeally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidshould be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't see a problem with that<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNeurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This analogy falls short for me. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8769230769230769, 'agreement': 0.5921052631578947, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.34444444444444444, 'partial': 0.25}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9253246753246753, 'agreement': 0.4945054945054945, 'direct_attack': 0.11363636363636363, 'undercutter_attack': 0.8378378378378378, 'partial': 0.03333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9004739336492891, 'agreement': 0.5389221556886227, 'direct_attack': 0.16949152542372878, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4881889763779528, 'partial': 0.058823529411764705}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7196078431372549, 'recall': 0.7196078431372549, 'f1': 0.7196078431372549, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4793612235717498, 'recall': 0.48092754092754086, 'f1': 0.43118002411027156, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7036960740211515, 'recall': 0.7196078431372549, 'f1': 0.693476887958092, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe DSM-IV defines delusion as : 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo, what would rich people spend their money on? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidthe reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause I want to know what older, more mature people think
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtheir will always be a few bad apples
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidLastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't see your point there
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAccording to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8734177215189873, 'agreement': 0.5964912280701754, 'direct_attack': 0.29133858267716534, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.25}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8961038961038961, 'agreement': 0.37362637362637363, 'direct_attack': 0.8409090909090909, 'undercutter_attack': 0.05405405405405406, 'partial': 0.03333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8846153846153846, 'agreement': 0.45945945945945943, 'direct_attack': 0.4327485380116959, 'undercutter_attack': 0.09302325581395349, 'partial': 0.058823529411764705}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6862745098039216, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6862745098039216, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4689161731199323, 'recall': 0.4396053496053495, 'f1': 0.3857340334624516, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6979325312811032, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6637644142986924, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSomething in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is very little skill involved in playing the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTherefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSomeone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI cant do the things the average person can
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would love a better measure of intelligence. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyeah. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8517441860465116, 'agreement': 0.6176470588235294, 'direct_attack': 0.4461538461538462, 'undercutter_attack': 0.45161290322580644, 'partial': 0.5}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9512987012987013, 'agreement': 0.46153846153846156, 'direct_attack': 0.6590909090909091, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3783783783783784, 'partial': 0.03333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8987730061349694, 'agreement': 0.5283018867924528, 'direct_attack': 0.5321100917431192, 'undercutter_attack': 0.411764705882353, 'partial': 0.0625}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7431372549019608, 'recall': 0.7431372549019608, 'f1': 0.7431372549019608, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5734315988499387, 'recall': 0.4967279567279568, 'f1': 0.48668993811057887, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7252618398144918, 'recall': 0.7431372549019608, 'f1': 0.7165111681216237, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Most interesting point so far. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida level of worth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There are plenty of professions that do great things for society<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said What about teachers? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwe know some
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Toaster killing himself for the master
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would love a better measure of intelligence. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8761609907120743, 'agreement': 0.6375, 'direct_attack': 0.3870967741935484, 'undercutter_attack': 0.45454545454545453, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9188311688311688, 'agreement': 0.5604395604395604, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.40540540540540543, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8969889064976228, 'agreement': 0.5964912280701755, 'direct_attack': 0.45283018867924524, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.19047619047619044}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7392156862745098, 'recall': 0.7392156862745098, 'f1': 0.7392156862745098, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5377273105568822, 'recall': 0.5126928026928026, 'f1': 0.5130715884589324, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7288637745529741, 'recall': 0.7392156862745098, 'f1': 0.7295083173117042, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat's where supply and demand are involved<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis value may not be the price being charged for the thing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said A crime completely erased. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is not a good reason to use anything. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidonly in a very narrow sense<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlso, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said whilst my original view still stands
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidC and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the number of them isn't the question - the severity is. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8769230769230769, 'agreement': 0.611764705882353, 'direct_attack': 0.37777777777777777, 'undercutter_attack': 0.39622641509433965, 'partial': 0.5}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9253246753246753, 'agreement': 0.5714285714285714, 'direct_attack': 0.38636363636363635, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5675675675675675, 'partial': 0.03333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9004739336492891, 'agreement': 0.5909090909090909, 'direct_attack': 0.38202247191011235, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4666666666666667, 'partial': 0.0625}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7372549019607844, 'recall': 0.7372549019607844, 'f1': 0.7372549019607844, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5525383951355095, 'recall': 0.49680355680355676, 'f1': 0.48051443262703186, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7295009715849307, 'recall': 0.7372549019607844, 'f1': 0.7197438318969017, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFeels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I see what you're getting at. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about the relationship of a brother and sister? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe air force isn't right for me<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I couldn't fly
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8761609907120743, 'agreement': 0.6790123456790124, 'direct_attack': 0.3804347826086957, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4444444444444444, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9188311688311688, 'agreement': 0.6043956043956044, 'direct_attack': 0.7954545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.10810810810810811, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8969889064976228, 'agreement': 0.6395348837209301, 'direct_attack': 0.5147058823529411, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17391304347826086, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7392156862745098, 'recall': 0.7392156862745098, 'f1': 0.7392156862745098, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4760105126888453, 'recall': 0.48535788535788527, 'f1': 0.4450285432099509, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7153554577947766, 'recall': 0.7392156862745098, 'f1': 0.7128472530433284, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other * <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhile you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said they don't understand what the circumstances of today are
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You just want to make a statement. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida level of worth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8996763754045307, 'agreement': 0.6444444444444445, 'direct_attack': 0.36231884057971014, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4583333333333333, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9025974025974026, 'agreement': 0.6373626373626373, 'direct_attack': 0.5681818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2972972972972973, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9011345218800648, 'agreement': 0.6408839779005525, 'direct_attack': 0.44247787610619477, 'undercutter_attack': 0.36065573770491804, 'partial': 0.125}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7352941176470589, 'recall': 0.7352941176470589, 'f1': 0.735294117647059, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5062879320857371, 'recall': 0.5010878310878312, 'f1': 0.4940304227183461, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7326375105644715, 'recall': 0.7352941176470589, 'f1': 0.730261105042676, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMy co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit no longer exists since you cannot experience it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe cars singing " You're worthless. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou are forgetting the need to make money also wains
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBrought it to the mainstream. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8648648648648649, 'agreement': 0.7164179104477612, 'direct_attack': 0.36046511627906974, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5833333333333334, 'partial': 0.25}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5274725274725275, 'direct_attack': 0.7045454545454546, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1891891891891892, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8985959438377537, 'agreement': 0.6075949367088608, 'direct_attack': 0.47692307692307695, 'undercutter_attack': 0.28571428571428575, 'partial': 0.14285714285714288}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7392156862745098, 'recall': 0.7392156862745098, 'f1': 0.7392156862745098, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5550162449850058, 'recall': 0.4912544212544212, 'f1': 0.48233707720822394, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7382670719190922, 'recall': 0.7392156862745098, 'f1': 0.7213734278123386, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidExercise regimens depend entirely on your goals. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNeither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSupporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThings about e-celebrities will start as rumors
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidCaveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8700906344410876, 'agreement': 0.7222222222222222, 'direct_attack': 0.36363636363636365, 'undercutter_attack': 0.375, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5714285714285714, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32432432432432434, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9014084507042254, 'agreement': 0.638036809815951, 'direct_attack': 0.43636363636363634, 'undercutter_attack': 0.34782608695652173, 'partial': 0.15384615384615383}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7431372549019608, 'recall': 0.7431372549019608, 'f1': 0.7431372549019608, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5328565107266015, 'recall': 0.49525447525447525, 'f1': 0.4954962275372976, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7325198777060338, 'recall': 0.7431372549019608, 'f1': 0.7301570634175076, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI do see a distinction between a pet and livestock<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think networking is one of them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThen, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAllowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIndividuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMaking a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7162162162162162, 'direct_attack': 0.36764705882352944, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3870967741935484, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5681818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32432432432432434, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6424242424242425, 'direct_attack': 0.44642857142857145, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3529411764705882, 'partial': 0.15384615384615383}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7470588235294118, 'recall': 0.7470588235294118, 'f1': 0.7470588235294117, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5364684326108865, 'recall': 0.5019977319977321, 'f1': 0.5002601043056092, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7374779437241493, 'recall': 0.7470588235294118, 'f1': 0.7347471913228916, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidLivestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said That is probably one of the biggest reasons. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidfair enough
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIm really good at doing certain things. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome businesses fail
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou're carrying and you rear end a guy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said living on is better than just about any death
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said - What about a one parent household? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said What particular aspects do you find toxic? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.3484848484848485, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3870967741935484, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5227272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32432432432432434, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.41818181818181815, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3529411764705882, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7431372549019608, 'recall': 0.7431372549019608, 'f1': 0.7431372549019608, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5240594139665736, 'recall': 0.4929068229068229, 'f1': 0.49306751777567337, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7321600098733435, 'recall': 0.7431372549019608, 'f1': 0.7313934382171894, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnly the rich could afford to be pale. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThings about e-celebrities will start as rumors
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow would you even get rid of networking. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPeople socialize. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saideven beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think this isn't ALWAYS true. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome people aren't changed by others that easily. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidseeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidExactly
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidOne person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey certainly aren't hard to make
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat's a pretty common artistic trope<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch as... talking about the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.3484848484848485, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3870967741935484, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5227272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32432432432432434, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.41818181818181815, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3529411764705882, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7431372549019608, 'recall': 0.7431372549019608, 'f1': 0.7431372549019608, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5240594139665736, 'recall': 0.4929068229068229, 'f1': 0.49306751777567337, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7321600098733435, 'recall': 0.7431372549019608, 'f1': 0.7313934382171894, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEvery middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe only difference is where the money goes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidreal-world examples of communist states
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt wouldn't be a fine
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOkay
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.3582089552238806, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32432432432432434, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.4324324324324324, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3582089552238806, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7450980392156863, 'recall': 0.7450980392156863, 'f1': 0.7450980392156863, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5285848804756703, 'recall': 0.49745227745227744, 'f1': 0.49697119637645476, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7339350687975712, 'recall': 0.7450980392156863, 'f1': 0.7330050751601282, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne person's murderer is a other's soldier. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthey certainly aren't hard to make<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd they certainly have been made throughout history. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; ) 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Businesses are and should be designed to be effective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAny company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPurchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhy would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.36923076923076925, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4375, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3783783783783784, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.4403669724770642, 'undercutter_attack': 0.40579710144927533, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7490196078431373, 'recall': 0.7490196078431373, 'f1': 0.7490196078431373, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5382892432770481, 'recall': 0.5082630882630883, 'f1': 0.50807573363046, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7376065586334597, 'recall': 0.7490196078431373, 'f1': 0.7371420970666055, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWho an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course not
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbut thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit would have been preferable to have our abortions alive
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidalmost violent
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's clearly an oligarchy
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Businesses are and should be designed to be effective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAny company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987.  [NEWLINE] The reason it is doesn't have attention now is because it didn't get attention back in the day.  [NEWLINE] The movie was not widely released in theaters because they never found a distributor for it.  [NEWLINE] So most of us who saw it did so in comparatively limited TV showings, or picked up a VHS tape.  [NEWLINE] It wasn't a made for TV movie, but that's what ended up happening to it.  [NEWLINE] It has massively outsized footprint for how easy it is to find and view.  [NEWLINE] Those who worked on it went on to do great things, and those who stumbled across it remember it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, in conclusion,  The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly,  but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Holy Crap I never knew it only went straight to VHS. [NEWLINE] That does explain a lot which kinda makes me sad it never got the loving from a massive portion of people like Iron Giant. [NEWLINE] Maybe a rerelease on Netflix will reignite the fire of the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] btw Um you get a delta for proving me wrong and that the movie was loved by the people but had very little in terms of distribution [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidshould be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.375, 'undercutter_attack': 0.45454545454545453, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.40540540540540543, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.4444444444444444, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7509803921568627, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7509803921568627, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5428521803399852, 'recall': 0.5136684936684937, 'f1': 0.5134460934483667, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7393409272060635, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.739146134066771, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saiddon't put the pussy up there<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWomen aren't putting your dick up there
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit goes to waste
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAt the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think I still have a lot to research
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBasically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI certainly value our free speech
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.375, 'undercutter_attack': 0.45454545454545453, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.40540540540540543, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.4444444444444444, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7509803921568627, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7509803921568627, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5428521803399852, 'recall': 0.5136684936684937, 'f1': 0.5134460934483667, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7393409272060635, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.739146134066771, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEvery exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTo me, it is as if my life had never happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidcommunism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " inn " is arguably a poor translation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.38095238095238093, 'undercutter_attack': 0.47058823529411764, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.43243243243243246, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.4485981308411215, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4507042253521127, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7529411764705882, 'recall': 0.7529411764705882, 'f1': 0.7529411764705881, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5472512126801939, 'recall': 0.5190738990738991, 'f1': 0.5187033900838389, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7410183539699955, 'recall': 0.7529411764705882, 'f1': 0.7411102040321418, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line]<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmost prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIts debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnyone * can * run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou might not get very far
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I sort of agree with you. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said, or <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHire an expensive private tutor instead. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.38095238095238093, 'undercutter_attack': 0.47058823529411764, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.43243243243243246, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.4485981308411215, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4507042253521127, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7529411764705882, 'recall': 0.7529411764705882, 'f1': 0.7529411764705881, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5472512126801939, 'recall': 0.5190738990738991, 'f1': 0.5187033900838389, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7410183539699955, 'recall': 0.7529411764705882, 'f1': 0.7411102040321418, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMaking a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe DSM-IV defines delusion as : 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou hate animals and you want to see them killed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidEh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidJust because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said that doesn't mean I should fear Christians. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.7066666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.38095238095238093, 'undercutter_attack': 0.47058823529411764, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5824175824175825, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.43243243243243246, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9056603773584906, 'agreement': 0.6385542168674699, 'direct_attack': 0.4485981308411215, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4507042253521127, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7529411764705882, 'recall': 0.7529411764705882, 'f1': 0.7529411764705881, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5472512126801939, 'recall': 0.5190738990738991, 'f1': 0.5187033900838389, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7410183539699955, 'recall': 0.7529411764705882, 'f1': 0.7411102040321418, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Communism has some flaws, 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said we're no more inherently correct than they were. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome people even have partners and still do it. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ]<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAhh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUltimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWell we have the benefit of history. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8753799392097265, 'agreement': 0.6986301369863014, 'direct_attack': 0.375, 'undercutter_attack': 0.47058823529411764, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5604395604395604, 'direct_attack': 0.5454545454545454, 'undercutter_attack': 0.43243243243243246, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9042386185243328, 'agreement': 0.6219512195121952, 'direct_attack': 0.4444444444444444, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4507042253521127, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7490196078431373, 'recall': 0.7490196078431373, 'f1': 0.7490196078431373, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.543919662298029, 'recall': 0.5146782946782947, 'f1': 0.514267701566617, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7374590753886893, 'recall': 0.7490196078431373, 'f1': 0.7369307203425255, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy point is that a responsible today allows for a better future
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidlet's say, a " less sensitive " person
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Quite honestly it dilutes it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome businesses fail
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI see this as a major flaw in democracy. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou make your own purpose in life
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBabies were created indiscriminately
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidStill, this can be ameliorated by high-rises. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said And the cheater is the source of the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8753799392097265, 'agreement': 0.7027027027027027, 'direct_attack': 0.3770491803278688, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4722222222222222, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5714285714285714, 'direct_attack': 0.5227272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4594594594594595, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9042386185243328, 'agreement': 0.6303030303030303, 'direct_attack': 0.4380952380952381, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4657534246575342, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7509803921568627, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7509803921568627, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.545470808892504, 'recall': 0.5177360477360478, 'f1': 0.5176780623160271, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7384810850572355, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7389649753952737, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidyou take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is where we disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I totally agree, 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAll the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's also a product of individual stupidity, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said well that's your own gullibility. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat's more a failure of the system than the system itself
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidbecause we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8753799392097265, 'agreement': 0.7027027027027027, 'direct_attack': 0.3770491803278688, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4722222222222222, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5714285714285714, 'direct_attack': 0.5227272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4594594594594595, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9042386185243328, 'agreement': 0.6303030303030303, 'direct_attack': 0.4380952380952381, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4657534246575342, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7509803921568627, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7509803921568627, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.545470808892504, 'recall': 0.5177360477360478, 'f1': 0.5176780623160271, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7384810850572355, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7389649753952737, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saiddo you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Surely, LESS would be better? 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhile you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saiddo you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt doesnt make me stupid<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think that builds my initial point. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said doesn't have a spy network ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8753799392097265, 'agreement': 0.7027027027027027, 'direct_attack': 0.3770491803278688, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4722222222222222, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5714285714285714, 'direct_attack': 0.5227272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4594594594594595, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9042386185243328, 'agreement': 0.6303030303030303, 'direct_attack': 0.4380952380952381, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4657534246575342, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7509803921568627, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7509803921568627, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.545470808892504, 'recall': 0.5177360477360478, 'f1': 0.5176780623160271, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7384810850572355, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7389649753952737, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDarwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidrushing/missing the damn point of the game
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDecisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo they should not. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThose people are civilians with full civil rights
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmath was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8753799392097265, 'agreement': 0.6986301369863014, 'direct_attack': 0.3709677419354839, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4722222222222222, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5604395604395604, 'direct_attack': 0.5227272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4594594594594595, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9042386185243328, 'agreement': 0.6219512195121952, 'direct_attack': 0.4339622641509434, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4657534246575342, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7490196078431373, 'recall': 0.7490196078431373, 'f1': 0.7490196078431373, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5434400080707468, 'recall': 0.5155382455382456, 'f1': 0.5151811053690012, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7372297384504561, 'recall': 0.7490196078431373, 'f1': 0.7371181800315189, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidExercise regimens depend entirely on your goals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWeights
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Fix the process, not the game. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidOnce we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople don't actually " horde " money in couches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome of it is retained as capital by the owners
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTo me, it is as if my life had never happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think I should<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I don't hear " you're so good at biology " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " inn " is arguably a poor translation<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8753799392097265, 'agreement': 0.6986301369863014, 'direct_attack': 0.3770491803278688, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4864864864864865, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5604395604395604, 'direct_attack': 0.5227272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4864864864864865, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9042386185243328, 'agreement': 0.6219512195121952, 'direct_attack': 0.4380952380952381, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4864864864864865, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7509803921568627, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7509803921568627, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5475091486020766, 'recall': 0.5209436509436509, 'f1': 0.5201543125236505, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7387892699544615, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7389789136417545, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit goes to waste
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Don't they need locking up in padded cells too? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring.. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a 800-odd page legislative titan
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidassuming they all die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I legal system that they could understand would be archaic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " President Obama sucks! " etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8753799392097265, 'agreement': 0.6986301369863014, 'direct_attack': 0.3770491803278688, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4864864864864865, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.5604395604395604, 'direct_attack': 0.5227272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4864864864864865, 'partial': 0.1}, 'f1': {'support': 0.9042386185243328, 'agreement': 0.6219512195121952, 'direct_attack': 0.4380952380952381, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4864864864864865, 'partial': 0.15}, 'support': {'support': 308, 'agreement': 91, 'direct_attack': 44, 'undercutter_attack': 37, 'partial': 30}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.7509803921568627, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7509803921568627, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.5475091486020766, 'recall': 0.5209436509436509, 'f1': 0.5201543125236505, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.7387892699544615, 'recall': 0.7509803921568627, 'f1': 0.7389789136417545, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidExercise regimens depend entirely on your goals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWeights
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAmerica ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit would have been preferable to have our abortions alive
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')


		-------------RUN 3-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987.  [NEWLINE] The reason it is doesn't have attention now is because it didn't get attention back in the day.  [NEWLINE] The movie was not widely released in theaters because they never found a distributor for it.  [NEWLINE] So most of us who saw it did so in comparatively limited TV showings, or picked up a VHS tape.  [NEWLINE] It wasn't a made for TV movie, but that's what ended up happening to it.  [NEWLINE] It has massively outsized footprint for how easy it is to find and view.  [NEWLINE] Those who worked on it went on to do great things, and those who stumbled across it remember it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, in conclusion,  The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly,  but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Holy Crap I never knew it only went straight to VHS. [NEWLINE] That does explain a lot which kinda makes me sad it never got the loving from a massive portion of people like Iron Giant. [NEWLINE] Maybe a rerelease on Netflix will reignite the fire of the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] btw Um you get a delta for proving me wrong and that the movie was loved by the people but had very little in terms of distribution [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.565989847715736, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9330543933054394, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7045813586097947, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5334928229665071, 'recall': 0.5334928229665071, 'f1': 0.5334928229665071, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.1131979695431472, 'recall': 0.1866108786610879, 'f1': 0.14091627172195892, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.32361620479440406, 'recall': 0.5334928229665071, 'f1': 0.4028587193965094, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople have different goals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo did they. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI see what you mean
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmaybe you're right
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7802197802197802, 'agreement': 0.31451612903225806, 'direct_attack': 0.25, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25961538461538464, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5941422594142259, 'agreement': 0.6724137931034483, 'direct_attack': 0.05555555555555555, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5625, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6745843230403801, 'agreement': 0.42857142857142855, 'direct_attack': 0.0909090909090909, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3552631578947369, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5023923444976076, 'recall': 0.5023923444976076, 'f1': 0.5023923444976076, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3208702587734846, 'recall': 0.37692232161464595, 'f1': 0.3098656000831273, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5410909124831026, 'recall': 0.5023923444976076, 'f1': 0.49379941367336927, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Quite honestly it dilutes it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no afterlife
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI do see a distinction between a pet and livestock<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut this view is separate from the objective success of the series. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have some more backing behind that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ), <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ), 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidoverall the idea was that humans have dominion over all
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhy would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8115183246073299, 'agreement': 0.29473684210526313, 'direct_attack': 0.21818181818181817, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35294117647058826, 'partial': 0.15384615384615385}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6485355648535565, 'agreement': 0.4827586206896552, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.375, 'partial': 0.10810810810810811}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7209302325581395, 'agreement': 0.3660130718954248, 'direct_attack': 0.26373626373626374, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3636363636363636, 'partial': 0.12698412698412698}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5191387559808612, 'recall': 0.5191387559808612, 'f1': 0.5191387559808612, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3662448630422307, 'recall': 0.3895471253969306, 'f1': 0.3682600117620637, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5778364737815753, 'recall': 0.5191387559808612, 'f1': 0.5387046588487886, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Every thought stands of its own individual merits. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmaybe you're right
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidLastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The average IQ will still be measured in the same way
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidPurchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidno, you don't. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe air force isn't right for me<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIm really good at doing certain things. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.86875, 'agreement': 0.3305785123966942, 'direct_attack': 0.20652173913043478, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2702702702702703, 'partial': 0.25}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5815899581589958, 'agreement': 0.6896551724137931, 'direct_attack': 0.5277777777777778, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20833333333333334, 'partial': 0.05405405405405406}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6967418546365916, 'agreement': 0.446927374301676, 'direct_attack': 0.296875, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23529411764705882, 'partial': 0.08888888888888889}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5023923444976076, 'recall': 0.5023923444976076, 'f1': 0.5023923444976076, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3852241043594799, 'recall': 0.4122820591475908, 'f1': 0.35294544709484305, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6135467925853513, 'recall': 0.5023923444976076, 'f1': 0.5208459270420821, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAnd then their descendants will die, on and on and on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line]
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saiddon't put the pussy up there
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said, <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, or 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPeter Jackson agrees with me : 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidamericans are better because of the side of the line they are born on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI see that behavior as attention seeking<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhat they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think networking is one of them, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou can create your own meaning. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe money goes to the state
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDid you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI cant do the things the average person can
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7458333333333333, 'agreement': 0.38461538461538464, 'direct_attack': 0.25757575757575757, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26785714285714285, 'partial': 0.29411764705882354}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7489539748953975, 'agreement': 0.25862068965517243, 'direct_attack': 0.4722222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3125, 'partial': 0.13513513513513514}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7473903966597077, 'agreement': 0.30927835051546393, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2884615384615385, 'partial': 0.18518518518518517}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5526315789473685, 'recall': 0.5526315789473685, 'f1': 0.5526315789473685, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3899998530880884, 'recall': 0.38548640438158543, 'f1': 0.3727297608310457, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5587896699650852, 'recall': 0.5526315789473685, 'f1': 0.5484747723195521, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhy would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTake for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidhasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWeights<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you want to work on aesthetics? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm a middle aged female. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think that's still largely an accident of geography
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidhope I didn't imply that through my post
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMeat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBeing the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they are trying to get americans to vote for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow would you even get rid of networking. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople talk. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSomeone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSomeone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLosing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said - What is the state of the school? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFrom all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7910447761194029, 'agreement': 0.4528301886792453, 'direct_attack': 0.3076923076923077, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24347826086956523, 'partial': 0.391304347826087}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6652719665271967, 'agreement': 0.41379310344827586, 'direct_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5833333333333334, 'partial': 0.24324324324324326}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7227272727272728, 'agreement': 0.4324324324324324, 'direct_attack': 0.2580645161290323, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3435582822085889, 'partial': 0.30000000000000004}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5454545454545454, 'recall': 0.5454545454545454, 'f1': 0.5454545454545454, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4372699762373216, 'recall': 0.42557277375485436, 'f1': 0.41135650069946533, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6042248634070836, 'recall': 0.5454545454545454, 'f1': 0.5614689459080304, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe information is gutted and moved around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Yes 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said[organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidonly in a very narrow sense<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidin the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidCheating, as I define it, is a choice. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidis a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida handful of people make the world a much nastier place
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPurchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7609561752988048, 'agreement': 0.425531914893617, 'direct_attack': 0.2692307692307692, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23214285714285715, 'partial': 0.4166666666666667}, 'recall': {'support': 0.799163179916318, 'agreement': 0.3448275862068966, 'direct_attack': 0.3888888888888889, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2708333333333333, 'partial': 0.13513513513513514}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7795918367346939, 'agreement': 0.380952380952381, 'direct_attack': 0.3181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.20408163265306126}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5813397129186603, 'recall': 0.5813397129186603, 'f1': 0.5813397129186603, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.42090567664654294, 'recall': 0.38776962469611437, 'f1': 0.38656153370439084, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.580864135076736, 'recall': 0.5813397129186603, 'f1': 0.5727829017644466, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis meant the teachers were also religious teachers
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm one of these people. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said they do not have a belief that they are better. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidhasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that couldn't really be further from the truth. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'l begin by saying it has never happened to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7279693486590039, 'agreement': 0.2727272727272727, 'direct_attack': 0.3148148148148148, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'partial': 0.75}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7949790794979079, 'agreement': 0.25862068965517243, 'direct_attack': 0.4722222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.08108108108108109}, 'f1': {'support': 0.76, 'agreement': 0.26548672566371684, 'direct_attack': 0.3777777777777778, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2608695652173913, 'partial': 0.14634146341463414}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5669856459330144, 'recall': 0.5669856459330144, 'f1': 0.5669856459330144, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4676477417856729, 'recall': 0.3713806144912767, 'f1': 0.362095106414704, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5788925803156129, 'recall': 0.5669856459330144, 'f1': 0.5468291946537603, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHad a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidgun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe right person in the right place at the right time
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidchanging the US laws would not change international laws
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidfactory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCompare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm not proposing we implement it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIn a perfect world, sure. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe air force isn't right for me<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.73046875, 'agreement': 0.34615384615384615, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2807017543859649, 'partial': 0.46153846153846156}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7824267782426778, 'agreement': 0.3103448275862069, 'direct_attack': 0.3888888888888889, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7555555555555554, 'agreement': 0.32727272727272727, 'direct_attack': 0.36842105263157887, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3047619047619048, 'partial': 0.24}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5765550239234449, 'recall': 0.5765550239234449, 'f1': 0.5765550239234449, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4337725624156546, 'recall': 0.3954311980426538, 'f1': 0.3992022480443532, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5689223962066327, 'recall': 0.5765550239234449, 'f1': 0.5653859456528809, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNo, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSchools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYoung impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIdeally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that is naive
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I can't stand it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.749003984063745, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3148148148148148, 'partial': 0.3888888888888889}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7866108786610879, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3541666666666667, 'partial': 0.1891891891891892}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7673469387755103, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.33333333333333337, 'partial': 0.2545454545454546}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.583732057416268, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.583732057416268, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.427170539436729, 'recall': 0.4037328105049213, 'f1': 0.4082246325103468, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5746170294089233, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.5757217871366881, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I wouldn't mind a smarter human race... 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said we're no more inherently correct than they were. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBut the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUniversalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThose time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt depends on the person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidno you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidreducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwho is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Nice exercise
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7413127413127413, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.375}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7710843373493976, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.22641509433962265}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5885167464114832, 'recall': 0.5885167464114832, 'f1': 0.5885167464114832, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.42655821681245404, 'recall': 0.3975080187675773, 'f1': 0.4033460401839579, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5711165341517705, 'recall': 0.5885167464114832, 'f1': 0.5753687128102366, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit goes to waste
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidpeople are different from you<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFor someone other hetero guy it might not be. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMeat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBeing the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidEh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about terminally ill adults? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis meant the teachers were also religious teachers
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe squat is often referred to as one of the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidworks your legs and core quite hard
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Fix the process, not the game. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You just want to make a statement. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7441860465116279, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.35135135135135137, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.772635814889336, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3561643835616438, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23076923076923078}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5885167464114832, 'recall': 0.5885167464114832, 'f1': 0.5885167464114832, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.42882038168259234, 'recall': 0.3975080187675773, 'f1': 0.402850532244606, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5733505963023391, 'recall': 0.5885167464114832, 'f1': 0.5758205681560542, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch as... talking about the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I might as well go ahead and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpursuing those things is irrational
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've got a friend I've worked with for years. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ). 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou are correct that this is false. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  said Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidno one in this system actually has $10
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidamericans are better because of the side of the line they are born on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidVegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7413127413127413, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7710843373493976, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23076923076923078}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5885167464114832, 'recall': 0.5885167464114832, 'f1': 0.5885167464114832, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.430197672594767, 'recall': 0.3975080187675773, 'f1': 0.4035295822465118, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5725482790985531, 'recall': 0.5885167464114832, 'f1': 0.5753595132750388, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey've got their own lives to worry about
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIn this sense, it is not done for attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMeat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwe don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHe can't test enough units on his own. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAt the best
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou are doing 2 things
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidOne thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDecisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnly the rich could afford to be pale. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidVegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7451737451737451, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7751004016064258, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23076923076923078}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5909090909090909, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5909090909090909, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4309698733669678, 'recall': 0.39834483885125926, 'f1': 0.4043327950979174, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5747558865693184, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.577655779680373, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhile you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen he's angry and yelling at you? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIdeally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I would argue that the better one depends on context. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmore mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ]<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhile you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIndeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhen the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7451737451737451, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7751004016064258, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23076923076923078}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5909090909090909, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5909090909090909, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4309698733669678, 'recall': 0.39834483885125926, 'f1': 0.4043327950979174, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5747558865693184, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.577655779680373, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSomething like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said either failing to get bad people or getting good people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore more likely to survive and advance the human race. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your view sounds great
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said they don't understand what the circumstances of today are
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou so make a good point about the sexual energy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7451737451737451, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7751004016064258, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23076923076923078}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5909090909090909, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5909090909090909, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4309698733669678, 'recall': 0.39834483885125926, 'f1': 0.4043327950979174, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5747558865693184, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.577655779680373, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCensorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthroughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidat the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNo pain, no awareness, just cessation of life
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's also the most beneficial for older people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere's an entire article I read about this once
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said doesn't make life have a point<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said once I die, all memories and all point is gone
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt wouldn't be a fine
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe Marines aren't knows for their... Genius... <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7461538461538462, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8117154811715481, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7775551102204409, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.23076923076923078}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5933014354066986, 'recall': 0.5933014354066986, 'f1': 0.5933014354066986, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4325264377806751, 'recall': 0.3991816589349413, 'f1': 0.4055110220440882, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5760974529484788, 'recall': 0.5933014354066986, 'f1': 0.5794539227721381, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSince we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy point is that a responsible today allows for a better future
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSelf awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople are different from you
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou make a really good point. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMost people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidActually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidEh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidJust because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI like them both for different reasons
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidamericans are better because of the side of the line they are born on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'l begin by saying it has never happened to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhich lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince the majority of farms are large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You can make arguments for something like Toy Story<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidDifferent branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nope. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There are plenty of professions that do great things for society<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Farmers? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7461538461538462, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8117154811715481, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7775551102204409, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5933014354066986, 'recall': 0.5933014354066986, 'f1': 0.5933014354066986, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4368801792772737, 'recall': 0.3991816589349413, 'f1': 0.4057287141962861, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5778453291324452, 'recall': 0.5933014354066986, 'f1': 0.579459837511065, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for money
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWell we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne person's murderer is a other's soldier. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAll of a sudden, war is a possibility
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwe die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwho is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnce we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidguides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTHAT is the issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmy experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis just won't help the situation in any way. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt wouldn't be a fine<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsince it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7423076923076923, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.37142857142857144, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7735470941883769, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3661971830985915, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5909090909090909, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5909090909090909, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.43686831812255544, 'recall': 0.39834483885125926, 'f1': 0.40527106639304994, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5757848707937915, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5772196475619006, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHe seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I might as well go ahead and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other * 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI completely understand your distaste with the IQ test. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome of your criticisms are definitely valid
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNobody " should " be forgiven for cheating<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7423076923076923, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7735470941883769, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5909090909090909, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5909090909090909, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4361109485080429, 'recall': 0.39834483885125926, 'f1': 0.4049271109898733, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5756462124596443, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5771681728420139, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is not a good reason to use anything. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAre those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI enjoyed it
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNote that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidalmost violent
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7423076923076923, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7735470941883769, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5909090909090909, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5909090909090909, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4361109485080429, 'recall': 0.39834483885125926, 'f1': 0.4049271109898733, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5756462124596443, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5771681728420139, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you are correct in saying that the egg came first
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnce we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople don't actually " horde " money in couches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidForced sterilization? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidyou take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't see a problem with that<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidRaising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidUltimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEvery other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFeels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7423076923076923, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7735470941883769, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32989690721649484, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5909090909090909, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5909090909090909, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4361109485080429, 'recall': 0.39834483885125926, 'f1': 0.4049271109898733, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5756462124596443, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5771681728420139, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI do see a distinction between a pet and livestock<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIs a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think it would
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome businesses fail
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat about terminally ill adults? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey wont experience long term consequences. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSociety might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said you didn't actually disagree with me. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidA lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbut as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7451737451737451, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7751004016064258, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3611111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5909090909090909, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5909090909090909, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.43537803663227387, 'recall': 0.39834483885125926, 'f1': 0.40456451347916367, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.576535009701825, 'recall': 0.5909090909090909, 'f1': 0.5776697477565523, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI have a Masters degree. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidneighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOr does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said He is not alone in this. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt depends on the person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTherefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidcommunism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  said Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThat is true
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat's more a failure of the system than the system itself
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople are different from you
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said[It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ]
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7451737451737451, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.34285714285714286, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3137254901960784, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8075313807531381, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7751004016064258, 'agreement': 0.3247863247863248, 'direct_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32323232323232326, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5885167464114832, 'recall': 0.5885167464114832, 'f1': 0.5885167464114832, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4304723410206959, 'recall': 0.39278928329570373, 'f1': 0.3992882672572434, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5742423797311765, 'recall': 0.5885167464114832, 'f1': 0.5753029922826373, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOn boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHowever this isn't about being just a bit conservative. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidextra attention results in health benefits
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidlow-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidan obvious example would be asexual people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidThese illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCarrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7413127413127413, 'agreement': 0.31666666666666665, 'direct_attack': 0.34285714285714286, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3125, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7710843373493976, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3061224489795918, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.583732057416268, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.583732057416268, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4258815958815959, 'recall': 0.38778579654535505, 'f1': 0.3945125942590435, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5697139039244303, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.5706600399920325, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmany laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidextra attention results in health benefits<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yes they do! 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAnd when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said[bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore passed down by parents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmany laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat's a pretty common artistic trope<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987.  [NEWLINE] The reason it is doesn't have attention now is because it didn't get attention back in the day.  [NEWLINE] The movie was not widely released in theaters because they never found a distributor for it.  [NEWLINE] So most of us who saw it did so in comparatively limited TV showings, or picked up a VHS tape.  [NEWLINE] It wasn't a made for TV movie, but that's what ended up happening to it.  [NEWLINE] It has massively outsized footprint for how easy it is to find and view.  [NEWLINE] Those who worked on it went on to do great things, and those who stumbled across it remember it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, in conclusion,  The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly,  but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Holy Crap I never knew it only went straight to VHS. [NEWLINE] That does explain a lot which kinda makes me sad it never got the loving from a massive portion of people like Iron Giant. [NEWLINE] Maybe a rerelease on Netflix will reignite the fire of the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] btw Um you get a delta for proving me wrong and that the movie was loved by the people but had very little in terms of distribution [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidDifferent branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthey are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's really not that difficult with a little common sense! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch discounts should be given to them. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7413127413127413, 'agreement': 0.31666666666666665, 'direct_attack': 0.34285714285714286, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3125, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7710843373493976, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3061224489795918, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.583732057416268, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.583732057416268, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4258815958815959, 'recall': 0.38778579654535505, 'f1': 0.3945125942590435, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5697139039244303, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.5706600399920325, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhy would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAs if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsociety upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit no longer exists since you cannot experience it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I've been browsing that site for 10 years, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think those boards are bit more niche and have less users. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIts debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut the money doesn't just disappear. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhen this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou so make a good point about the sexual energy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidits no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI completely disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7413127413127413, 'agreement': 0.31666666666666665, 'direct_attack': 0.34285714285714286, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3125, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7710843373493976, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3061224489795918, 'partial': 0.23529411764705885}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.583732057416268, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.583732057416268, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4258815958815959, 'recall': 0.38778579654535505, 'f1': 0.3945125942590435, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5697139039244303, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.5706600399920325, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI grant you that there is merit to that idea
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's wonderful because I can let it all out <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think networking is one of them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThen, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWaging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey break the fourth wall, if you will. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOnce ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince the majority of farms are large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7413127413127413, 'agreement': 0.31666666666666665, 'direct_attack': 0.34285714285714286, 'undercutter_attack': 0.29411764705882354, 'partial': 0.46153846153846156}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3125, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7710843373493976, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'undercutter_attack': 0.30303030303030304, 'partial': 0.24}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.583732057416268, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.583732057416268, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4312985318867672, 'recall': 0.38778579654535505, 'f1': 0.39483534153977395, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5719565529163053, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.5707215104262262, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey've got their own lives to worry about
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNow of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man... 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will die too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI completely understand your distaste with the IQ test. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't make Poker a bad game by design<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saideven though it can be unfun in some scenarios
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwe die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNeither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSupporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7413127413127413, 'agreement': 0.31666666666666665, 'direct_attack': 0.34285714285714286, 'undercutter_attack': 0.29411764705882354, 'partial': 0.46153846153846156}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3125, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7710843373493976, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'undercutter_attack': 0.30303030303030304, 'partial': 0.24}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.583732057416268, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.583732057416268, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4312985318867672, 'recall': 0.38778579654535505, 'f1': 0.39483534153977395, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5719565529163053, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.5707215104262262, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidall of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said they seem blind to what the US government is really about
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo ideal system is really going to be inefficient<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money! 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think that's still largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople have different goals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Quite honestly it dilutes it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidLivestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNot all crops are created equal. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's definitely not a time I want back
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidnow it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7413127413127413, 'agreement': 0.31666666666666665, 'direct_attack': 0.34285714285714286, 'undercutter_attack': 0.29411764705882354, 'partial': 0.46153846153846156}, 'recall': {'support': 0.803347280334728, 'agreement': 0.3275862068965517, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3125, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7710843373493976, 'agreement': 0.3220338983050847, 'direct_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'undercutter_attack': 0.30303030303030304, 'partial': 0.24}, 'support': {'support': 239, 'agreement': 58, 'direct_attack': 36, 'undercutter_attack': 48, 'partial': 37}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.583732057416268, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.583732057416268, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4312985318867672, 'recall': 0.38778579654535505, 'f1': 0.39483534153977395, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5719565529163053, 'recall': 0.583732057416268, 'f1': 0.5707215104262262, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ]<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNetworking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhy did they stay so long anyway? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNo matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAny company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection, 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')


		-------------RUN 4-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidpursuing those things is irrational<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThings about e-celebrities will start as rumors
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6666666666666666, 'agreement': 0.06971153846153846, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.07446808510638298, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.009732360097323601, 'agreement': 0.47540983606557374, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2545454545454545, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.01918465227817746, 'agreement': 0.12159329140461217, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.11522633744855967, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 55, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.07679738562091504, 'recall': 0.07679738562091504, 'f1': 0.07679738562091504, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.16216925804691762, 'recall': 0.14793753014167038, 'f1': 0.05120085622626987, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4613531838676551, 'recall': 0.07679738562091504, 'f1': 0.035358711473338335, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's worth it dammit! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other * <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe same goes for when something is priced above its market value<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidnot because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidForced sterilization? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGeography certainly has to be part of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidCryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe two are often one the same
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthey are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said doesn't make life have a point<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said once I die, all memories and all point is gone
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7482352941176471, 'agreement': 0.23776223776223776, 'direct_attack': 0.21212121212121213, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.375}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7737226277372263, 'agreement': 0.5666666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.2692307692307692, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.05084745762711865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7607655502392345, 'agreement': 0.3349753694581281, 'direct_attack': 0.23728813559322037, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.08955223880597016}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 60, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5915032679738562, 'recall': 0.5915032679738562, 'f1': 0.5915032679738562, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.31462374880021937, 'recall': 0.3320935042523562, 'f1': 0.28451625881931064, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5709650190575796, 'recall': 0.5915032679738562, 'f1': 0.5624611714555376, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOften it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidExercise regimens depend entirely on your goals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Best regimen just depends on your goals
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI lost hope often because things felt hopeless
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said 100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said you aren't looking to have your view changed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAll while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.82, 'agreement': 0.41935483870967744, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.248, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8, 'agreement': 0.21311475409836064, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5535714285714286, 'partial': 0.15254237288135594}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8098765432098766, 'agreement': 0.28260869565217395, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3425414364640884, 'partial': 0.20224719101123598}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.630718954248366, 'recall': 0.630718954248366, 'f1': 0.630718954248366, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3959325062034739, 'recall': 0.38230724957176754, 'f1': 0.36591631172901345, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6509291587602782, 'recall': 0.630718954248366, 'f1': 0.6297441468341239, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line]<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmost prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidtheir poison should be kept out of the minds of children
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSatire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSure
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThese types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWho an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPurchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEither way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7894736842105263, 'agreement': 0.38028169014084506, 'direct_attack': 0.45454545454545453, 'undercutter_attack': 0.30985915492957744, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8759124087591241, 'agreement': 0.4426229508196721, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.39285714285714285, 'partial': 0.017241379310344827}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8304498269896193, 'agreement': 0.4090909090909091, 'direct_attack': 0.27027027027027023, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3464566929133858, 'partial': 0.03278688524590164}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 58}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6781045751633987, 'recall': 0.6781045751633987, 'f1': 0.6781045751633987, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.45349866343194734, 'recall': 0.38418831481079524, 'f1': 0.37781091690201724, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6473439463017799, 'recall': 0.6781045751633987, 'f1': 0.6447706952969248, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidLivestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNot all crops are created equal. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMany of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is true
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8409090909090909, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.09090909090909091, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24390243902439024, 'partial': 0.2777777777777778}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8121951219512196, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35714285714285715, 'partial': 0.0847457627118644}, 'f1': {'support': 0.826302729528536, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.1234567901234568, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2898550724637681, 'partial': 0.12987012987012986}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6356209150326797, 'recall': 0.6356209150326797, 'f1': 0.6356209150326797, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3759455813634142, 'recall': 0.374524188462071, 'f1': 0.3591428460365224, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6587970410304224, 'recall': 0.6356209150326797, 'f1': 0.640340224461141, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's really not that difficult with a little common sense! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhile you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidother than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou hate animals and you want to see them killed. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSlaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAt what point do your rules against networking kick in? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf so, how big are we talking? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe money goes to the state<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think this isn't ALWAYS true. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidneighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I might as well go ahead and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpursuing those things is irrational
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7849462365591398, 'agreement': 0.46938775510204084, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.33766233766233766, 'partial': 0.21428571428571427}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8902439024390244, 'agreement': 0.3770491803278688, 'direct_attack': 0.038461538461538464, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4642857142857143, 'partial': 0.05084745762711865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8342857142857142, 'agreement': 0.41818181818181815, 'direct_attack': 0.060606060606060615, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3909774436090226, 'partial': 0.08219178082191782}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6830065359477124, 'recall': 0.6830065359477124, 'f1': 0.6830065359477124, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.389827837293275, 'recall': 0.36417755862825296, 'f1': 0.35724856350090667, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6302726206155321, 'recall': 0.6830065359477124, 'f1': 0.646872619693774, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSimply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidGood point none-the-less, but I disagree
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saiddon't put the pussy up there<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWomen aren't putting your dick up there
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut the money doesn't just disappear. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7912087912087912, 'agreement': 0.5, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3382352941176471, 'partial': 0.34782608695652173}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8759124087591241, 'agreement': 0.39344262295081966, 'direct_attack': 0.11538461538461539, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4107142857142857, 'partial': 0.13793103448275862}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8314087759815242, 'agreement': 0.4403669724770642, 'direct_attack': 0.13636363636363638, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3709677419354839, 'partial': 0.19753086419753085}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 58}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6830065359477124, 'recall': 0.6830065359477124, 'f1': 0.6830065359477124, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.42878736778992527, 'recall': 0.38667699345832074, 'f1': 0.3953275981910479, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6521817582258382, 'recall': 0.6830065359477124, 'f1': 0.6606990693902056, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMEMORIZE. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAllowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said * No * theorem is " proof "! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTheorems are explanations * of * facts
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOne reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFor example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's wonderful because I can let it all out <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said 4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7857142857142857, 'agreement': 0.46, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3176470588235294, 'partial': 0.23076923076923078}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8585365853658536, 'agreement': 0.3770491803278688, 'direct_attack': 0.07692307692307693, 'undercutter_attack': 0.48214285714285715, 'partial': 0.05084745762711865}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8205128205128205, 'agreement': 0.4144144144144144, 'direct_attack': 0.09523809523809525, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38297872340425526, 'partial': 0.08333333333333333}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6650326797385621, 'recall': 0.6650326797385621, 'f1': 0.6650326797385621, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3838261150614092, 'recall': 0.3690998314773551, 'f1': 0.35929547738058376, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6288504526999337, 'recall': 0.6650326797385621, 'f1': 0.6381196100376325, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince the majority of farms are large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere are a lot of great, good-looking people out there. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'l begin by saying it has never happened to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhen he starts aiming at you you draw to fire
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said someone would pick up the slack. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEnergy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will die too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7780126849894292, 'agreement': 0.4528301886792453, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38095238095238093, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8975609756097561, 'agreement': 0.39344262295081966, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2857142857142857, 'partial': 0.1016949152542373}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8335220838052096, 'agreement': 0.42105263157894735, 'direct_attack': 0.16, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32653061224489793, 'partial': 0.1518987341772152}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6830065359477124, 'recall': 0.6830065359477124, 'f1': 0.6830065359477124, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4156923842575444, 'recall': 0.36645179067505046, 'f1': 0.378600812361254, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6372132500355663, 'recall': 0.6830065359477124, 'f1': 0.6516928177918656, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMeat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEducation
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey've got their own lives to worry about
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwe should be very careful not to escalate the conflict. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat's exactly what it's turning into<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAccording to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtheir will always be a few bad apples
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMatthew 2 : 11
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat's a pretty common artistic trope<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOr are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7934065934065934, 'agreement': 0.5365853658536586, 'direct_attack': 0.09090909090909091, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.36363636363636365}, 'recall': {'support': 0.878345498783455, 'agreement': 0.36666666666666664, 'direct_attack': 0.07692307692307693, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8337182448036952, 'agreement': 0.4356435643564356, 'direct_attack': 0.08333333333333334, 'undercutter_attack': 0.375, 'partial': 0.19753086419753088}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 60, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6813725490196079, 'recall': 0.6813725490196079, 'f1': 0.6813725490196079, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4235741494278079, 'recall': 0.37721997825672204, 'f1': 0.385045201338199, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6548530724283953, 'recall': 0.6813725490196079, 'f1': 0.6595062093627874, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your view sounds great
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Can you name at least one game that has spectacular change/s or uniqueness among its predecessors and genre? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] A few : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Elder Scrolls [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -GTA [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Dragon Age ( With Inquisition ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Metroid Prime [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Mass Effect [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The list goes on. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right, <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe squat is often referred to as one of the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt helps with flexibility
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ). 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWell, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography " 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidtheir poison should be kept out of the minds of children<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8, 'agreement': 0.48, 'direct_attack': 0.1, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32432432432432434, 'partial': 0.34782608695652173}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8682926829268293, 'agreement': 0.39344262295081966, 'direct_attack': 0.07692307692307693, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8327485380116959, 'agreement': 0.43243243243243246, 'direct_attack': 0.08695652173913043, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3692307692307692, 'partial': 0.1951219512195122}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6764705882352942, 'recall': 0.6764705882352942, 'f1': 0.6764705882352942, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.41043008225616917, 'recall': 0.3805646063422275, 'f1': 0.383298042526708, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6512482047264656, 'recall': 0.6764705882352942, 'f1': 0.6572798475935708, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidamericans are better because of the side of the line they are born on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd they consistently perform this goal well year after year. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwon't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSlaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said~~slaves~~ robots
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt doesnt make me stupid<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think that's still largely an accident of geography
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think I should<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I don't hear " you're so good at biology " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's clearly an oligarchy
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat about the unemployed? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey don't pay income tax so they don't contribute
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8148148148148148, 'agreement': 0.42857142857142855, 'direct_attack': 0.18518518518518517, 'undercutter_attack': 0.29850746268656714, 'partial': 0.34782608695652173}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8585365853658536, 'agreement': 0.4426229508196721, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35714285714285715, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8361045130641329, 'agreement': 0.43548387096774194, 'direct_attack': 0.18867924528301885, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32520325203252026, 'partial': 0.1951219512195122}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.673202614379085, 'recall': 0.673202614379085, 'f1': 0.673202614379085, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.41498099564290347, 'recall': 0.39724066119501167, 'f1': 0.39611856651338523, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6573037631905696, 'recall': 0.673202614379085, 'f1': 0.6601251700955189, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen he's angry and yelling at you? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLike it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI've spent a lot of time with similar problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNow, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI called the ER
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course not
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8134831460674158, 'agreement': 0.43548387096774194, 'direct_attack': 0.20408163265306123, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4, 'partial': 0.45454545454545453}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8807785888077859, 'agreement': 0.4426229508196721, 'direct_attack': 0.38461538461538464, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32727272727272727, 'partial': 0.0847457627118644}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8457943925233646, 'agreement': 0.43902439024390244, 'direct_attack': 0.26666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.36000000000000004, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 55, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6895424836601307, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6895424836601307, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.46151882084673473, 'recall': 0.4240070828454868, 'f1': 0.41086851845821537, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.678154237630558, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6692220390422969, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSay if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidby the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSince we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said That is probably one of the biggest reasons. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidfair enough
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhen the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbut thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTake for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSomething in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You can make arguments for something like Toy Story
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthey certainly aren't hard to make<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd they certainly have been made throughout history. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Quite honestly it dilutes it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they die, they won't know either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8089887640449438, 'agreement': 0.46938775510204084, 'direct_attack': 0.20833333333333334, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3424657534246575, 'partial': 0.38095238095238093}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8759124087591241, 'agreement': 0.3770491803278688, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.44642857142857145, 'partial': 0.13793103448275862}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8411214953271028, 'agreement': 0.41818181818181815, 'direct_attack': 0.2, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3875968992248062, 'partial': 0.20253164556962022}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 58}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6879084967320261, 'recall': 0.6879084967320261, 'f1': 0.6879084967320261, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.44202559737147135, 'recall': 0.405925777461203, 'f1': 0.40988637166066944, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6663676830676176, 'recall': 0.6879084967320261, 'f1': 0.669709619751891, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAmerica's innovation and education rankings would be lower
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said it seems more capitalist than anything. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidForced sterilization? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhy did they stay so long anyway? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidShe is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmany laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidassuming they all die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.802660753880266, 'agreement': 0.5, 'direct_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8807785888077859, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.43636363636363634, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8399071925754059, 'agreement': 0.4601769911504424, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818185, 'undercutter_attack': 0.38095238095238093, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 55, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6928104575163399, 'recall': 0.6928104575163399, 'f1': 0.6928104575163399, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4525822290233146, 'recall': 0.406562221510656, 'f1': 0.4130772784132063, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6672596354874866, 'recall': 0.6928104575163399, 'f1': 0.6714079630341996, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said whilst my original view still stands
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI certainly value our free speech
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSatire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWaging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidExactly
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow would you even get rid of networking. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople talk. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidlet's say, a " less sensitive " person
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou didn't exist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAt this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8, 'agreement': 0.49056603773584906, 'direct_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8372093023255814, 'agreement': 0.456140350877193, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818185, 'undercutter_attack': 0.37795275590551175, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6895424836601307, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6895424836601307, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4501632857944312, 'recall': 0.40445781828821825, 'f1': 0.41113044729921766, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6637775874909367, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6681738063784087, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI did do the completionist run! 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ]<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I feel terrible for the animals
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAt what point do your rules against networking kick in? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFinally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saiddespite how much you love your dog
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't see your point there<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter... 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saiddoes not make my actions your fault
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBack during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat are you, a common peasant? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidDifferent branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe Marines aren't knows for their... Genius... 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8, 'agreement': 0.49056603773584906, 'direct_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8372093023255814, 'agreement': 0.456140350877193, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818185, 'undercutter_attack': 0.37795275590551175, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6895424836601307, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6895424836601307, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4501632857944312, 'recall': 0.40445781828821825, 'f1': 0.41113044729921766, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6637775874909367, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6681738063784087, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAmerica's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI completely understand your distaste with the IQ test. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe two are often one the same<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " President Obama sucks! " etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou so make a good point about the sexual energy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople don't actually " horde " money in couches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmoney that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNobody " should " be forgiven for cheating
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8, 'agreement': 0.49056603773584906, 'direct_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8372093023255814, 'agreement': 0.456140350877193, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818185, 'undercutter_attack': 0.37795275590551175, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6895424836601307, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6895424836601307, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4501632857944312, 'recall': 0.40445781828821825, 'f1': 0.41113044729921766, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6637775874909367, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6681738063784087, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI've spent a lot of time with similar problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAt what point do your rules against networking kick in? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's either the extreme left, or the extreme right. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I wouldn't mind a smarter human race... 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saiddo not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That is probably one of the biggest reasons. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidin some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNo matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidat the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDitto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidhope I didn't imply that through my post
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople were hysterical
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. " 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8, 'agreement': 0.5, 'direct_attack': 0.21052631578947367, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3380281690140845, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8372093023255814, 'agreement': 0.4601769911504424, 'direct_attack': 0.17777777777777778, 'undercutter_attack': 0.37795275590551175, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6895424836601307, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6895424836601307, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.44971089696071165, 'recall': 0.40445781828821825, 'f1': 0.4111296945457868, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6642210158093383, 'recall': 0.6895424836601307, 'f1': 0.6684045000902024, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I can't stand it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwe should be very careful not to escalate the conflict. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFair enough
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey likely do want to improve animal welfare
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI need someone to handle running the business side of things. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOr are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIs a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidseeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTo me, it is as if my life had never happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8040089086859689, 'agreement': 0.5, 'direct_attack': 0.22727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.878345498783455, 'agreement': 0.43333333333333335, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4107142857142857, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8395348837209303, 'agreement': 0.4642857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.20833333333333331, 'undercutter_attack': 0.36799999999999994, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 60, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6911764705882353, 'recall': 0.6911764705882353, 'f1': 0.6911764705882353, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.45292299385840584, 'recall': 0.41005880609554995, 'f1': 0.4165371153819196, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.667685325238057, 'recall': 0.6911764705882353, 'f1': 0.6713725716041168, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis is no different from any other system<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidshortage occurs because not enough was produced
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring.. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidyou take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think is flawed
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI see that behavior as attention seeking<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhat they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople don't actually " horde " money in couches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmoney that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's really not that difficult with a little common sense! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " inn " is arguably a poor translation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSimply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative, 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThey couldn't just survive together<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAll of a sudden, war is a possibility
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI called the ER
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8017817371937639, 'agreement': 0.5, 'direct_attack': 0.19047619047619047, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32857142857142857, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8780487804878049, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4107142857142857, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8381839348079163, 'agreement': 0.4601769911504424, 'direct_attack': 0.1702127659574468, 'undercutter_attack': 0.365079365079365, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6879084967320261, 'recall': 0.6879084967320261, 'f1': 0.6879084967320261, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.44416587124827656, 'recall': 0.4008863897167897, 'f1': 0.40723694051295817, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6636975379114775, 'recall': 0.6879084967320261, 'f1': 0.6675580934303403, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIn this sense, it is not done for attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidUltimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAt the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPlus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhen plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI cant do the things the average person can
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8017817371937639, 'agreement': 0.49056603773584906, 'direct_attack': 0.19047619047619047, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3188405797101449, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8759124087591241, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8372093023255813, 'agreement': 0.456140350877193, 'direct_attack': 0.1702127659574468, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3548387096774193, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 55, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6862745098039216, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6862745098039216, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4403329090231896, 'recall': 0.3983162582281965, 'f1': 0.40418655488145216, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.662655939746671, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6663539423122253, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPolitical parties appeal to these learned biases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seriously strains credulity to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida handful of people make the world a much nastier place
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nope. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987.  [NEWLINE] The reason it is doesn't have attention now is because it didn't get attention back in the day.  [NEWLINE] The movie was not widely released in theaters because they never found a distributor for it.  [NEWLINE] So most of us who saw it did so in comparatively limited TV showings, or picked up a VHS tape.  [NEWLINE] It wasn't a made for TV movie, but that's what ended up happening to it.  [NEWLINE] It has massively outsized footprint for how easy it is to find and view.  [NEWLINE] Those who worked on it went on to do great things, and those who stumbled across it remember it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, in conclusion,  The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly,  but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Holy Crap I never knew it only went straight to VHS. [NEWLINE] That does explain a lot which kinda makes me sad it never got the loving from a massive portion of people like Iron Giant. [NEWLINE] Maybe a rerelease on Netflix will reignite the fire of the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] btw Um you get a delta for proving me wrong and that the movie was loved by the people but had very little in terms of distribution [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt is comparable to that, too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMonopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8031319910514542, 'agreement': 0.48148148148148145, 'direct_attack': 0.19047619047619047, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32857142857142857, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.875609756097561, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4107142857142857, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8378063010501751, 'agreement': 0.45217391304347826, 'direct_attack': 0.1702127659574468, 'undercutter_attack': 0.365079365079365, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6862745098039216, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6862745098039216, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4407322183161109, 'recall': 0.4003985848387409, 'f1': 0.4055607981400171, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6627563196958293, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6665074110689047, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere is a 4th choice. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBy the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSavescumming for optimal results breaks most games
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I can't stand it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidgun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSomeone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8053691275167785, 'agreement': 0.48148148148148145, 'direct_attack': 0.19047619047619047, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32857142857142857, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8759124087591241, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4107142857142857, 'partial': 0.13793103448275862}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8391608391608392, 'agreement': 0.45217391304347826, 'direct_attack': 0.1702127659574468, 'undercutter_attack': 0.365079365079365, 'partial': 0.20512820512820515}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 58}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6879084967320261, 'recall': 0.6879084967320261, 'f1': 0.6879084967320261, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4411796456091758, 'recall': 0.4009266781998087, 'f1': 0.4063510176738669, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6649174227649465, 'recall': 0.6879084967320261, 'f1': 0.6687011860253775, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis implies the complement is meaningful. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey likely do want to improve animal welfare
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSomeone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSomeone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNobody " should " be forgiven for cheating<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI completely disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8031319910514542, 'agreement': 0.48148148148148145, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.875609756097561, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4107142857142857, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8378063010501751, 'agreement': 0.45217391304347826, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666669, 'undercutter_attack': 0.36799999999999994, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6862745098039216, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6862745098039216, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.43995299753689016, 'recall': 0.4003985848387409, 'f1': 0.40543570526598804, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6628242256460882, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.666624007431642, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )! 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt doesnt make me stupid<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidConsider the goal the creators of CoD have. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou're carrying and you rear end a guy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyour farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnother thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTelling my government to send help is easier said than done. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidis a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAre there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's worth it dammit! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8031319910514542, 'agreement': 0.48148148148148145, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.875609756097561, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4107142857142857, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8378063010501751, 'agreement': 0.45217391304347826, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666669, 'undercutter_attack': 0.36799999999999994, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6862745098039216, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6862745098039216, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.43995299753689016, 'recall': 0.4003985848387409, 'f1': 0.40543570526598804, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6628242256460882, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.666624007431642, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not UNDERSTAND. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAre those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey couldn't just survive together
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they are trying to get americans to vote for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I do care about the welfare of food animals
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI work in a surgery unit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8013392857142857, 'agreement': 0.48148148148148145, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3382352941176471, 'partial': 0.4}, 'recall': {'support': 0.875609756097561, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4107142857142857, 'partial': 0.13559322033898305}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8368298368298368, 'agreement': 0.45217391304347826, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666669, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3709677419354839, 'partial': 0.20253164556962028}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6862745098039216, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.6862745098039216, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.44057484862631924, 'recall': 0.4003985848387409, 'f1': 0.40583396080901724, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6620717756717133, 'recall': 0.6862745098039216, 'f1': 0.666241398310806, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBefore the chicken there was a similar but different creature. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyeah. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is true
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWaging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSomeone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSomeone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saiddo not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Can you name at least one game that has spectacular change/s or uniqueness among its predecessors and genre? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] A few : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Elder Scrolls [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -GTA [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Dragon Age ( With Inquisition ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Metroid Prime [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Mass Effect [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The list goes on. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8, 'agreement': 0.4727272727272727, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3235294117647059, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8759124087591241, 'agreement': 0.4262295081967213, 'direct_attack': 0.11538461538461539, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4, 'partial': 0.1016949152542373}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8362369337979094, 'agreement': 0.44827586206896547, 'direct_attack': 0.12765957446808512, 'undercutter_attack': 0.35772357723577236, 'partial': 0.15584415584415584}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 55, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6813725490196079, 'recall': 0.6813725490196079, 'f1': 0.6813725490196079, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.414489432136491, 'recall': 0.3838442895189397, 'f1': 0.38514802068297765, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6516526693862335, 'recall': 0.6813725490196079, 'f1': 0.6588675788498213, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWeights<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you want to work on aesthetics? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidnow it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore passed down by parents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the number of them isn't the question - the severity is. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPeter Jackson agrees with me : 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNetworking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987.  [NEWLINE] The reason it is doesn't have attention now is because it didn't get attention back in the day.  [NEWLINE] The movie was not widely released in theaters because they never found a distributor for it.  [NEWLINE] So most of us who saw it did so in comparatively limited TV showings, or picked up a VHS tape.  [NEWLINE] It wasn't a made for TV movie, but that's what ended up happening to it.  [NEWLINE] It has massively outsized footprint for how easy it is to find and view.  [NEWLINE] Those who worked on it went on to do great things, and those who stumbled across it remember it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, in conclusion,  The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly,  but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Holy Crap I never knew it only went straight to VHS. [NEWLINE] That does explain a lot which kinda makes me sad it never got the loving from a massive portion of people like Iron Giant. [NEWLINE] Maybe a rerelease on Netflix will reignite the fire of the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] btw Um you get a delta for proving me wrong and that the movie was loved by the people but had very little in terms of distribution [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes, intelligence matters. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI get seasick lol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said that doesn't mean I should fear Christians. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou didn't exist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7977777777777778, 'agreement': 0.46296296296296297, 'direct_attack': 0.13636363636363635, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3235294117647059, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.875609756097561, 'agreement': 0.4098360655737705, 'direct_attack': 0.11538461538461539, 'undercutter_attack': 0.39285714285714285, 'partial': 0.1016949152542373}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8348837209302326, 'agreement': 0.43478260869565216, 'direct_attack': 0.12499999999999997, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3548387096774193, 'partial': 0.15584415584415584}, 'support': {'support': 410, 'agreement': 61, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6781045751633987, 'recall': 0.6781045751633987, 'f1': 0.6781045751633987, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4107934244404833, 'recall': 0.3790764990334654, 'f1': 0.381069839029492, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.64813627107937, 'recall': 0.6781045751633987, 'f1': 0.6554572510597563, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey can have close relationships that rival that of marriage
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOkay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwe continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthis CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ok
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe squat is often referred to as one of the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs far as single lifts go
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm sure with the right culture it would
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhy would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou only run risk and very little reward. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Nice exercise
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said whilst my original view still stands
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I can't stand it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidits the real ones that have problems. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " inn " is arguably a poor translation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTo me, it is as if my life had never happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7982261640798226, 'agreement': 0.4528301886792453, 'direct_attack': 0.13636363636363635, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3235294117647059, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8759124087591241, 'agreement': 0.4, 'direct_attack': 0.11538461538461539, 'undercutter_attack': 0.39285714285714285, 'partial': 0.1016949152542373}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8352668213457077, 'agreement': 0.4247787610619469, 'direct_attack': 0.12499999999999997, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3548387096774193, 'partial': 0.15584415584415584}, 'support': {'support': 411, 'agreement': 60, 'direct_attack': 26, 'undercutter_attack': 56, 'partial': 59}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6781045751633987, 'recall': 0.6781045751633987, 'f1': 0.6781045751633987, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4088565468441486, 'recall': 0.37716981645102393, 'f1': 0.37914568958584594, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6479910670400435, 'recall': 0.6781045751633987, 'f1': 0.6553875198914108, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidi won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidthe reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seriously strains credulity to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " inn " is arguably a poor translation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAllowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')


		-------------RUN 5-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ). 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6511627906976745, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.03653846153846154}, 'recall': {'support': 0.14545454545454545, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.7916666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.23779193205944796, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.06985294117647059}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 66, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.12376237623762376, 'recall': 0.12376237623762376, 'f1': 0.12376237623762376, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.1375402504472272, 'recall': 0.1874242424242424, 'f1': 0.06152897464718371, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4151395998276035, 'recall': 0.12376237623762376, 'f1': 0.15383888519987254, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  said Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI certainly value our free speech
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said there is no cognitive dissonance
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's either the extreme left, or the extreme right. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNone. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8866396761133604, 'agreement': 0.5319148936170213, 'direct_attack': 0.18518518518518517, 'undercutter_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'partial': 0.10071942446043165}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5703125, 'agreement': 0.373134328358209, 'direct_attack': 0.14705882352941177, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2698412698412698, 'partial': 0.5833333333333334}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6941362916006338, 'agreement': 0.4385964912280702, 'direct_attack': 0.1639344262295082, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18681318681318682, 'partial': 0.17177914110429446}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.47029702970297027, 'recall': 0.47029702970297027, 'f1': 0.47029702970297027, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36946326444662825, 'recall': 0.3887360510124448, 'f1': 0.3310519073951387, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6602603832995276, 'recall': 0.47029702970297027, 'f1': 0.532960019845321, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yeah
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is empowering, not attention seeking. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs in never buying meat again
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow would you even get rid of networking. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople talk. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said, or <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPolitical parties appeal to these learned biases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ), <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhen they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8415841584158416, 'agreement': 0.37623762376237624, 'direct_attack': 0.15151515151515152, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17355371900826447, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6623376623376623, 'agreement': 0.5671641791044776, 'direct_attack': 0.14705882352941177, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3387096774193548, 'partial': 0.20833333333333334}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7412790697674417, 'agreement': 0.45238095238095233, 'direct_attack': 0.14925373134328357, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22950819672131145, 'partial': 0.25641025641025644}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 62, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5429042904290429, 'recall': 0.5429042904290429, 'f1': 0.5429042904290429, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.37524479720699344, 'recall': 0.38472073514484795, 'f1': 0.36576644132464914, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6242263740325429, 'recall': 0.5429042904290429, 'f1': 0.5713441811087452, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said[47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCensorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidShould young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidJust because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt depends on the person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no afterlife
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt is comparable to that, too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSexual attraction is not something that just shuts off<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPrison? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.800982800982801, 'agreement': 0.7142857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.2894736842105263, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19130434782608696, 'partial': 0.18181818181818182}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8467532467532467, 'agreement': 0.373134328358209, 'direct_attack': 0.16176470588235295, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3548387096774194, 'partial': 0.08333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8232323232323231, 'agreement': 0.49019607843137253, 'direct_attack': 0.2075471698113208, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24858757062146894, 'partial': 0.1142857142857143}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 62, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.636963696369637, 'recall': 0.636963696369637, 'f1': 0.636963696369637, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.43557294582466205, 'recall': 0.3639648648009123, 'f1': 0.3767697712764399, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6471027024598858, 'recall': 0.636963696369637, 'f1': 0.6304555705740996, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said They're just prioritizing their mental resources. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMost people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWalking<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBest in terms of monetary investment? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I see what you're getting at. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI see this as a major flaw in democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthough I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said~~slaves~~ robots
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they die, they won't know either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saiddegrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople don't actually " horde " money in couches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhat does that really mean? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7932960893854749, 'agreement': 0.5348837209302325, 'direct_attack': 0.3684210526315789, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18478260869565216, 'partial': 0.5}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7395833333333334, 'agreement': 0.34328358208955223, 'direct_attack': 0.10294117647058823, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5396825396825397, 'partial': 0.041666666666666664}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7654986522911051, 'agreement': 0.41818181818181815, 'direct_attack': 0.16091954022988503, 'undercutter_attack': 0.27530364372469635, 'partial': 0.07692307692307693}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5759075907590759, 'recall': 0.5759075907590759, 'f1': 0.5759075907590759, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4762766943285877, 'recall': 0.35343145964853606, 'f1': 0.33936534627011633, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6421730091635666, 'recall': 0.5759075907590759, 'f1': 0.581027188835657, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWithout the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDoesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIn this sense, it is not done for attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe compliments feel great as well! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Probably not even a bolt to the brain either. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChickens simply aren't. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Don't they need locking up in padded cells too? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm a middle aged female. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I don't think some of them would start killing<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said thus being legal to kill in defense
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8087167070217918, 'agreement': 0.6521739130434783, 'direct_attack': 0.3125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2831858407079646, 'partial': 0.2222222222222222}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8675324675324675, 'agreement': 0.45454545454545453, 'direct_attack': 0.07352941176470588, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5079365079365079, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8370927318295739, 'agreement': 0.5357142857142857, 'direct_attack': 0.11904761904761905, 'undercutter_attack': 0.36363636363636365, 'partial': 0.1904761904761905}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 66, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6683168316831684, 'recall': 0.6683168316831684, 'f1': 0.6683168316831684, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.45575973659909136, 'recall': 0.41404210168916045, 'f1': 0.4091934381408066, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6581245078584068, 'recall': 0.6683168316831684, 'f1': 0.6488673303420567, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOn boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I might as well go ahead and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpursuing those things is irrational
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidneighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEven someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDoesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8277777777777777, 'agreement': 0.4090909090909091, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1888111888111888, 'partial': 0.23076923076923078}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7760416666666666, 'agreement': 0.5373134328358209, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.125}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8010752688172043, 'agreement': 0.46451612903225803, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2621359223300971, 'partial': 0.16216216216216217}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6006600660066007, 'recall': 0.6006600660066007, 'f1': 0.6006600660066007, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3312898212898213, 'recall': 0.3733853056147832, 'f1': 0.3379778964683443, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5985302376391486, 'recall': 0.6006600660066007, 'f1': 0.5926434634812802, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEvery middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidB, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said they don't understand what the circumstances of today are
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's wonderful because I can let it all out <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOften it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they are trying to get americans to vote for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI like them both for different reasons
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is true
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7595505617977528, 'agreement': 0.33783783783783783, 'direct_attack': 0.34782608695652173, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24561403508771928, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8802083333333334, 'agreement': 0.373134328358209, 'direct_attack': 0.11764705882352941, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'partial': 0.041666666666666664}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8154402895054284, 'agreement': 0.35460992907801414, 'direct_attack': 0.1758241758241758, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23333333333333334, 'partial': 0.06451612903225806}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.636963696369637, 'recall': 0.636963696369637, 'f1': 0.636963696369637, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36673713290739485, 'recall': 0.32697572188079216, 'f1': 0.328744771354642, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5888729049795602, 'recall': 0.636963696369637, 'f1': 0.6024626525926231, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that couldn't really be further from the truth. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIdeally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said doesn't make life have a point<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said once I die, all memories and all point is gone
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow would you even get rid of networking. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople talk. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7883211678832117, 'agreement': 0.575, 'direct_attack': 0.19444444444444445, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24786324786324787, 'partial': 0.5}, 'recall': {'support': 0.84375, 'agreement': 0.34328358208955223, 'direct_attack': 0.10294117647058823, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4603174603174603, 'partial': 0.041666666666666664}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8150943396226416, 'agreement': 0.4299065420560747, 'direct_attack': 0.1346153846153846, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32222222222222224, 'partial': 0.07692307692307693}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6336633663366337, 'recall': 0.6336633663366337, 'f1': 0.6336633663366337, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4611257720381808, 'recall': 0.3583917771088535, 'f1': 0.35575231308788, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.630491642417096, 'recall': 0.6336633663366337, 'f1': 0.6156765094601508, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I see what you're getting at. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think I still have a lot to research<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe Army is a military service
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think this isn't ALWAYS true. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is true
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidCardio<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you want to improve your cardiovascular health? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm sure with the right culture it would
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI have a Masters degree. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7614678899082569, 'agreement': 0.46153846153846156, 'direct_attack': 0.2631578947368421, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22033898305084745, 'partial': 0.15}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8623376623376623, 'agreement': 0.36363636363636365, 'direct_attack': 0.07352941176470588, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20634920634920634, 'partial': 0.25}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8087697929354445, 'agreement': 0.4067796610169492, 'direct_attack': 0.11494252873563217, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21311475409836064, 'partial': 0.18749999999999997}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 66, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6270627062706271, 'recall': 0.6270627062706271, 'f1': 0.6270627062706271, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3713006458468816, 'recall': 0.3511705288175876, 'f1': 0.34622134735727733, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5924138099843663, 'recall': 0.6270627062706271, 'f1': 0.6006042068803376, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saideven beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said[It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ]
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other * <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidgun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidother than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidPerhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think it would<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis is no different from any other system<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn communism, surplus value is also either created
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7738927738927739, 'agreement': 0.48214285714285715, 'direct_attack': 0.15789473684210525, 'undercutter_attack': 0.13432835820895522, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8645833333333334, 'agreement': 0.40298507462686567, 'direct_attack': 0.04411764705882353, 'undercutter_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'partial': 0.2916666666666667}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8167281672816727, 'agreement': 0.43902439024390244, 'direct_attack': 0.06896551724137931, 'undercutter_attack': 0.13846153846153844, 'partial': 0.23728813559322035}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6237623762376238, 'recall': 0.6237623762376238, 'f1': 0.6237623762376238, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.34965174521733833, 'recall': 0.3492419729085664, 'f1': 0.34009354976434264, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5832969063957492, 'recall': 0.6237623762376238, 'f1': 0.5976004913073132, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAhh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saiddespite how much you love your dog
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap, <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHowever, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWeights<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you want to work on aesthetics? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidbecause we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidShe is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7330595482546202, 'agreement': 0.5666666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.19047619047619047, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2631578947368421, 'partial': 0.09090909090909091}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9272727272727272, 'agreement': 0.2537313432835821, 'direct_attack': 0.05970149253731343, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23809523809523808, 'partial': 0.041666666666666664}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8188073394495413, 'agreement': 0.35051546391752575, 'direct_attack': 0.09090909090909091, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.05714285714285715}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 67, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6501650165016502, 'recall': 0.6501650165016502, 'f1': 0.6501650165016502, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.368853878208682, 'recall': 0.30409349357110554, 'f1': 0.313474950283803, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5803915231961047, 'recall': 0.6501650165016502, 'f1': 0.5972569297572364, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said ok<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Not sure where you got your idea of communism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidat the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA bolt to the brain sounds bad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidhow could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI see that and agree with it
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, Congregationalists and Universaliists. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe information is gutted and moved around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEverything is polluted to hell
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHalo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidAs for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8142414860681114, 'agreement': 0.3333333333333333, 'direct_attack': 0.3018867924528302, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'partial': 0.06666666666666667}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6848958333333334, 'agreement': 0.5522388059701493, 'direct_attack': 0.23529411764705882, 'undercutter_attack': 0.31746031746031744, 'partial': 0.041666666666666664}, 'f1': {'support': 0.743988684582744, 'agreement': 0.4157303370786517, 'direct_attack': 0.2644628099173554, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23952095808383234, 'partial': 0.05128205128205127}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5561056105610561, 'recall': 0.5561056105610561, 'f1': 0.5561056105610561, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3416871941657268, 'recall': 0.36631114821550514, 'f1': 0.342996968188927, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.609316419943342, 'recall': 0.5561056105610561, 'f1': 0.5740093203440169, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidcardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAccording to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think those boards are bit more niche and have less users. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOne reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNetworking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said A crime completely erased. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " inn " is arguably a poor translation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhat would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWell, real estate could certainly be one. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think that's still largely an accident of geography
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidall of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7489270386266095, 'agreement': 0.45901639344262296, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3684210526315789, 'partial': 0.13725490196078433}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9088541666666666, 'agreement': 0.417910447761194, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1111111111111111, 'partial': 0.2916666666666667}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8211764705882353, 'agreement': 0.4375, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17073170731707318, 'partial': 0.18666666666666668}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6452145214521452, 'recall': 0.6452145214521452, 'f1': 0.6452145214521452, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3427238773323191, 'recall': 0.3459084784411277, 'f1': 0.32321496891439505, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5690540019077922, 'recall': 0.6452145214521452, 'f1': 0.5938619839387095, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidLivestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidother than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI guarantee no one would care. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSimply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidOnce we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor I will be dead and won't know what I did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said[47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAt the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7775, 'agreement': 0.46296296296296297, 'direct_attack': 0.23529411764705882, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23943661971830985, 'partial': 0.0851063829787234}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8077922077922078, 'agreement': 0.373134328358209, 'direct_attack': 0.11764705882352941, 'undercutter_attack': 0.27419354838709675, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7923566878980892, 'agreement': 0.4132231404958678, 'direct_attack': 0.15686274509803924, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2556390977443609, 'partial': 0.11267605633802817}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 62, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6023102310231023, 'recall': 0.6023102310231023, 'f1': 0.6023102310231023, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36006001666141096, 'recall': 0.34788676200554197, 'f1': 0.3461515455148771, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5994119507137675, 'recall': 0.6023102310231023, 'f1': 0.5972999856978833, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that is useful for decision making in a political context
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think networking is one of them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidRight
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said whilst my original view still stands
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBrought it to the mainstream. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlmost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ) 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI might be losing precious time by joining the military
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.791005291005291, 'agreement': 0.7647058823529411, 'direct_attack': 0.22988505747126436, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22580645161290322, 'partial': 0.06451612903225806}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7786458333333334, 'agreement': 0.19402985074626866, 'direct_attack': 0.29411764705882354, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.08333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7847769028871392, 'agreement': 0.30952380952380953, 'direct_attack': 0.25806451612903225, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2692307692307692, 'partial': 0.07272727272727274}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5858085808580858, 'recall': 0.5858085808580858, 'f1': 0.5858085808580858, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4151837622949316, 'recall': 0.3366919995610184, 'f1': 0.3388646540996046, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6376034708252672, 'recall': 0.5858085808580858, 'f1': 0.5913330132846929, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saida lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAll when the clostest they've been to military life are
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said - What about a one parent household? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou didn't exist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthis, you have to keep in check yourself
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yes they do! 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8116710875331565, 'agreement': 0.5, 'direct_attack': 0.25, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2413793103448276, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.796875, 'agreement': 0.4925373134328358, 'direct_attack': 0.17647058823529413, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8042049934296979, 'agreement': 0.49624060150375937, 'direct_attack': 0.20689655172413793, 'undercutter_attack': 0.28, 'partial': 0.15384615384615383}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6204620462046204, 'recall': 0.6204620462046204, 'f1': 0.6204620462046204, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3891815081470254, 'recall': 0.39317658033362596, 'f1': 0.3882376601007498, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6284111643449302, 'recall': 0.6204620462046204, 'f1': 0.6228780709361467, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew?? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said For me, that wasn't a completionist run. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit would have been preferable to have our abortions alive
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou can create your own meaning. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMay as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIdeally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidif I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7355371900826446, 'agreement': 0.7142857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.37735849056603776, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9270833333333334, 'agreement': 0.22388059701492538, 'direct_attack': 0.08823529411764706, 'undercutter_attack': 0.31746031746031744, 'partial': 0.125}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8202764976958524, 'agreement': 0.34090909090909094, 'direct_attack': 0.12631578947368421, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3448275862068966, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6600660066006601, 'recall': 0.6600660066006601, 'f1': 0.6600660066006601, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.43845215200275234, 'recall': 0.3363319083852446, 'f1': 0.3531324595237715, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.614879028538319, 'recall': 0.6600660066006601, 'f1': 0.6127734254477911, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Every thought stands of its own individual merits. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said doesn't make life have a point<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said once I die, all memories and all point is gone
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIs a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't make Poker a bad game by design<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saideven though it can be unfun in some scenarios
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhich lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm sure with the right culture it would
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7700892857142857, 'agreement': 0.5652173913043478, 'direct_attack': 0.19047619047619047, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8984375, 'agreement': 0.3880597014925373, 'direct_attack': 0.058823529411764705, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.125}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8293269230769231, 'agreement': 0.46017699115044247, 'direct_attack': 0.08988764044943819, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3157894736842105, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6584158415841584, 'recall': 0.6584158415841584, 'f1': 0.6584158415841584, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3937280020703934, 'recall': 0.36073081284752706, 'f1': 0.3657028723388695, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6086877942452631, 'recall': 0.6584158415841584, 'f1': 0.6245882727083913, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm one of these people. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMEMORIZE. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthey are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's wonderful because I can let it all out <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Cheating isn't just a single mistake though. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMonopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidForming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI have a Masters degree. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWell the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is not a good reason to use anything. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou're right. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7666666666666667, 'agreement': 0.5370370370370371, 'direct_attack': 0.24615384615384617, 'undercutter_attack': 0.42857142857142855, 'partial': 0.25}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8961038961038961, 'agreement': 0.43283582089552236, 'direct_attack': 0.23529411764705882, 'undercutter_attack': 0.14516129032258066, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8263473053892216, 'agreement': 0.47933884297520657, 'direct_attack': 0.2406015037593985, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21686746987951808, 'partial': 0.2}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 62, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.665016501650165, 'recall': 0.665016501650165, 'f1': 0.665016501650165, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.44568579568579575, 'recall': 0.37521235832714495, 'f1': 0.39263102440066894, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6278185449802611, 'recall': 0.665016501650165, 'f1': 0.63509257498739, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidas it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI've spent a lot of time with similar problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIndividuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's an ethical question
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI do see a distinction between a pet and livestock<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSome theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is no different from any other system
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7536842105263157, 'agreement': 0.7714285714285715, 'direct_attack': 0.23529411764705882, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3, 'partial': 0.1724137931034483}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9298701298701298, 'agreement': 0.4090909090909091, 'direct_attack': 0.058823529411764705, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23809523809523808, 'partial': 0.20833333333333334}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8325581395348836, 'agreement': 0.5346534653465347, 'direct_attack': 0.09411764705882353, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26548672566371684, 'partial': 0.18867924528301888}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 66, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6749174917491749, 'recall': 0.6749174917491749, 'f1': 0.6749174917491749, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.44656413854107885, 'recall': 0.368842627960275, 'f1': 0.38309904457739546, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.627261778550165, 'recall': 0.6749174917491749, 'f1': 0.6327986436260858, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seriously strains credulity to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome of your criticisms are definitely valid
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is very little skill involved in playing the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI called the ER
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said * No * theorem is " proof "! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTheorems are explanations * of * facts
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7740492170022372, 'agreement': 0.6530612244897959, 'direct_attack': 0.22727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.29508196721311475, 'partial': 0.2222222222222222}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9010416666666666, 'agreement': 0.47761194029850745, 'direct_attack': 0.07352941176470588, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2857142857142857, 'partial': 0.25}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8327316486161251, 'agreement': 0.5517241379310345, 'direct_attack': 0.11111111111111112, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2903225806451613, 'partial': 0.23529411764705882}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6716171617161716, 'recall': 0.6716171617161716, 'f1': 0.6716171617161716, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4343374716400195, 'recall': 0.3975794608888331, 'f1': 0.4042367191900982, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.6276700397557432, 'recall': 0.6716171617161716, 'f1': 0.6406392859235998, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a choice. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right, <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhy did they stay so long anyway? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPlus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI see this as a major flaw in democracy. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said[finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsociety upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause I want to know what older, more mature people think
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7326315789473684, 'agreement': 0.5714285714285714, 'direct_attack': 0.21052631578947367, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.90625, 'agreement': 0.3582089552238806, 'direct_attack': 0.058823529411764705, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2857142857142857, 'partial': 0.08333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.810244470314319, 'agreement': 0.4403669724770642, 'direct_attack': 0.09195402298850575, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2926829268292683, 'partial': 0.11764705882352941}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6534653465346535, 'recall': 0.6534653465346535, 'f1': 0.6534653465346535, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4029172932330828, 'recall': 0.33846602073665283, 'f1': 0.35057909028653733, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5901518648105412, 'recall': 0.6534653465346535, 'f1': 0.6075146718182983, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou are forgetting the need to make money also wains
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIts debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Fix the process, not the game. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhen I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm showing some of what I truly believe. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMachines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWe don't know all
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.749379652605459, 'agreement': 0.4406779661016949, 'direct_attack': 0.20454545454545456, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21649484536082475, 'partial': 0.6666666666666666}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7864583333333334, 'agreement': 0.3880597014925373, 'direct_attack': 0.1323529411764706, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'partial': 0.08333333333333333}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7674714104193139, 'agreement': 0.41269841269841273, 'direct_attack': 0.1607142857142857, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26249999999999996, 'partial': 0.14814814814814814}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.594059405940594, 'recall': 0.594059405940594, 'f1': 0.594059405940594, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.45555291705601997, 'recall': 0.34470752853380154, 'f1': 0.35030645139603206, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5954380800266217, 'recall': 0.594059405940594, 'f1': 0.5831376934586422, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a 800-odd page legislative titan
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwe die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMEMORIZE. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew?? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYes
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it obviously does
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have some more backing behind that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.775175644028103, 'agreement': 0.5625, 'direct_attack': 0.16363636363636364, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2054794520547945, 'partial': 0.15789473684210525}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8619791666666666, 'agreement': 0.26865671641791045, 'direct_attack': 0.1323529411764706, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23809523809523808, 'partial': 0.125}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8162762022194819, 'agreement': 0.3636363636363636, 'direct_attack': 0.1463414634146341, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22058823529411764, 'partial': 0.13953488372093023}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6204620462046204, 'recall': 0.6204620462046204, 'f1': 0.6204620462046204, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3729372393122733, 'recall': 0.32521681247125717, 'f1': 0.3372754296571055, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5993678204582952, 'recall': 0.6204620462046204, 'f1': 0.6023280751830763, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidA lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg * 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidevents that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe doll is worth $10. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you aren't looking to have your view changed
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7735849056603774, 'agreement': 0.40350877192982454, 'direct_attack': 0.15555555555555556, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.13636363636363635}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8519480519480519, 'agreement': 0.3484848484848485, 'direct_attack': 0.10294117647058823, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1746031746031746, 'partial': 0.125}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8108776266996293, 'agreement': 0.37398373983739835, 'direct_attack': 0.12389380530973451, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18181818181818182, 'partial': 0.13043478260869565}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 66, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6138613861386139, 'recall': 0.6138613861386139, 'f1': 0.6138613861386139, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.33173360838463734, 'recall': 0.3205954503013327, 'f1': 0.3242016272547279, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5779877038600457, 'recall': 0.6138613861386139, 'f1': 0.5938623302093096, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ]
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBusinesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOne reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt doesnt make me stupid<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidim capable of the same things just in a different way
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAnd then their descendants will die, on and on and on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7532467532467533, 'agreement': 0.425531914893617, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2830188679245283, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.90625, 'agreement': 0.29850746268656714, 'direct_attack': 0.029411764705882353, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23809523809523808, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.822695035460993, 'agreement': 0.3508771929824562, 'direct_attack': 0.04878048780487805, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25862068965517243, 'partial': 0.14814814814814814}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.641914191419142, 'recall': 0.641914191419142, 'f1': 0.641914191419142, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3475976024510749, 'recall': 0.32778622643087085, 'f1': 0.32582431081032953, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.575085587356694, 'recall': 0.641914191419142, 'f1': 0.5983323394742722, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMatthew 2 : 11
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think is flawed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidhad those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhen you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida handful of people make the world a much nastier place
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe same goes for when something is priced above its market value<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit won't sell and will be waste
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidby it's very nature implies you cannot sum them<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPerhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidelevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.756043956043956, 'agreement': 0.43478260869565216, 'direct_attack': 0.2, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2318840579710145, 'partial': 0.19047619047619047}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8935064935064935, 'agreement': 0.29850746268656714, 'direct_attack': 0.04411764705882353, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25396825396825395, 'partial': 0.17391304347826086}, 'f1': {'support': 0.819047619047619, 'agreement': 0.35398230088495575, 'direct_attack': 0.07228915662650603, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2424242424242424, 'partial': 0.1818181818181818}, 'support': {'support': 385, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 23}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6386138613861386, 'recall': 0.6386138613861386, 'f1': 0.6386138613861386, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36263736263736257, 'recall': 0.3328025801396798, 'f1': 0.333912300160301, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.582173277050591, 'recall': 0.6386138613861386, 'f1': 0.599703557092035, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople thought the exact same thing before WWI. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI definitely agree with it
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think those boards are bit more niche and have less users. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere is a 4th choice. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis implies the complement is meaningful. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right? 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidOne person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think all these comparisons are true
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think that builds my initial point. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidParents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidyou take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is where we disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat about terminally ill adults? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey wont experience long term consequences. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7549668874172185, 'agreement': 0.4166666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25806451612903225, 'partial': 0.16}, 'recall': {'support': 0.890625, 'agreement': 0.29850746268656714, 'direct_attack': 0.058823529411764705, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25396825396825395, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8172043010752689, 'agreement': 0.3478260869565217, 'direct_attack': 0.09302325581395347, 'undercutter_attack': 0.256, 'partial': 0.16326530612244897}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.636963696369637, 'recall': 0.636963696369637, 'f1': 0.636963696369637, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36238405848702787, 'recall': 0.33371818254665053, 'f1': 0.3354637899936386, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5825629159440903, 'recall': 0.636963696369637, 'f1': 0.5998065151506233, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMost people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell we have the benefit of history. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIdeally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said This is why you see so many older people in politics
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNow imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmy point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidon principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidJeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAt the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7549668874172185, 'agreement': 0.4166666666666667, 'direct_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25806451612903225, 'partial': 0.16}, 'recall': {'support': 0.890625, 'agreement': 0.29850746268656714, 'direct_attack': 0.058823529411764705, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25396825396825395, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.8172043010752689, 'agreement': 0.3478260869565217, 'direct_attack': 0.09302325581395347, 'undercutter_attack': 0.256, 'partial': 0.16326530612244897}, 'support': {'support': 384, 'agreement': 67, 'direct_attack': 68, 'undercutter_attack': 63, 'partial': 24}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.636963696369637, 'recall': 0.636963696369637, 'f1': 0.636963696369637, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36238405848702787, 'recall': 0.33371818254665053, 'f1': 0.3354637899936386, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5825629159440903, 'recall': 0.636963696369637, 'f1': 0.5998065151506233, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOr are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
	Train size: 50 Test size: 50


		-------------RUN 1-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSlut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBeyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidtheir poison should be kept out of the minds of children
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidshould be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat about terminally ill adults? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey wont experience long term consequences. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidVegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.4090909090909091, 'agreement': 0.16309963099630997, 'direct_attack': 0.6666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.024096385542168676, 'agreement': 0.9650655021834061, 'direct_attack': 0.01282051282051282, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.045512010113780026, 'agreement': 0.27904040404040403, 'direct_attack': 0.025157232704402517, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 229, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.1718972895863053, 'recall': 0.1718972895863053, 'f1': 0.1718972895863053, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.24777144135077717, 'recall': 0.2003964801092175, 'f1': 0.06994192937171731, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.3187879633302882, 'recall': 0.1718972895863053, 'f1': 0.07262642823261983, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I support these efforts when they're available. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think that's still largely an accident of geography
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMore corn is produced for livestock than humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe information is gutted and moved around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt is also downright silly to consider
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidin some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAs you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidVegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yes it does
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt really depends on how you view animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6818181818181818, 'agreement': 0.5508474576271186, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.10784313725490197, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7841823056300268, 'agreement': 0.5652173913043478, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7294264339152119, 'agreement': 0.5579399141630901, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1375, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5335235378031383, 'recall': 0.5335235378031383, 'f1': 0.5335235378031383, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.2681017553400405, 'recall': 0.3078109738696336, 'f1': 0.2849732696156604, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.46654492494504557, 'recall': 0.5335235378031383, 'f1': 0.49672132664640417, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmath was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou don't put in much effort
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWithout the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  said Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said - What about a one parent household? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSchools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat's more a failure of the system than the system itself
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8165548098434005, 'agreement': 0.2789400278940028, 'direct_attack': 0.19230769230769232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20958083832335328, 'partial': 0.3157894736842105}, 'recall': {'support': 0.48927613941018766, 'agreement': 0.8695652173913043, 'direct_attack': 0.0641025641025641, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20114942528735633, 'partial': 0.0625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6119027661357922, 'agreement': 0.4223864836325238, 'direct_attack': 0.09615384615384616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20527859237536655, 'partial': 0.10434782608695652}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.43937232524964337, 'recall': 0.43937232524964337, 'f1': 0.43937232524964337, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3626345684105319, 'recall': 0.33731866923828246, 'f1': 0.2880139028768971, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5492788515697183, 'recall': 0.43937232524964337, 'f1': 0.4382055785666498, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOr are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidShe's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSay if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said That is probably one of the biggest reasons. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidfair enough
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm a middle aged female. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI grant you that there is merit to that idea<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidif someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNow we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidi won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about terminally ill adults? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOkay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat's more a failure of the system than the system itself
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said * No * theorem is " proof "! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTheorems are explanations * of * facts
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7162673392181589, 'agreement': 0.4731182795698925, 'direct_attack': 0.10869565217391304, 'undercutter_attack': 0.16339869281045752, 'partial': 0.22535211267605634}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7613941018766756, 'agreement': 0.3826086956521739, 'direct_attack': 0.03205128205128205, 'undercutter_attack': 0.28735632183908044, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7381416504223522, 'agreement': 0.42307692307692313, 'direct_attack': 0.04950495049504951, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20833333333333334, 'partial': 0.19161676646706588}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5185449358059915, 'recall': 0.5185449358059915, 'f1': 0.5185449358059915, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3373664152896957, 'recall': 0.32601541361717573, 'f1': 0.32213472475894483, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5065437492602519, 'recall': 0.5185449358059915, 'f1': 0.5066543119692104, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTake the Volcker rule and prop. trading. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPerhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDoesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey can validly reach different conclusions. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEverything is polluted to hell
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSatire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwe should be very careful not to escalate the conflict. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7290322580645161, 'agreement': 0.363855421686747, 'direct_attack': 0.16981132075471697, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24516129032258063, 'partial': 0.25}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7563587684069611, 'agreement': 0.6593886462882096, 'direct_attack': 0.057692307692307696, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21839080459770116, 'partial': 0.010416666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7424441524310117, 'agreement': 0.468944099378882, 'direct_attack': 0.0861244019138756, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23100303951367782, 'partial': 0.019999999999999997}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 229, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5449358059914408, 'recall': 0.5449358059914408, 'f1': 0.5449358059914408, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35157205816571213, 'recall': 0.34044943873036926, 'f1': 0.30970313864748944, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5143071461443107, 'recall': 0.5449358059914408, 'f1': 0.5118002255332911, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's also a product of individual stupidity, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut romance just isn't as cut and dry as that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut it really isn't. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHalo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNow, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDoesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidJeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCompare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidUnfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBasically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7787356321839081, 'agreement': 0.4131578947368421, 'direct_attack': 0.19469026548672566, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22346368715083798, 'partial': 0.29411764705882354}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7255689424364123, 'agreement': 0.6826086956521739, 'direct_attack': 0.14102564102564102, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23121387283236994, 'partial': 0.10416666666666667}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7512127512127511, 'agreement': 0.5147540983606558, 'direct_attack': 0.16356877323420074, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22727272727272727, 'partial': 0.15384615384615385}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 173, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5499286733238231, 'recall': 0.5499286733238231, 'f1': 0.5499286733238231, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3808330253234275, 'recall': 0.37691676372265276, 'f1': 0.3621309007852978, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5520741986030843, 'recall': 0.5499286733238231, 'f1': 0.5414789650433836, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You can make arguments for something like Toy Story<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7350835322195705, 'agreement': 0.47876447876447875, 'direct_attack': 0.18064516129032257, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26136363636363635, 'partial': 0.2903225806451613}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8257372654155496, 'agreement': 0.5391304347826087, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.13218390804597702, 'partial': 0.1875}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7777777777777779, 'agreement': 0.5071574642126789, 'direct_attack': 0.180064308681672, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17557251908396945, 'partial': 0.2278481012658228}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5770328102710414, 'recall': 0.5770328102710414, 'f1': 0.5770328102710414, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3892358778566339, 'recall': 0.372807757546263, 'f1': 0.37368403420438423, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5420948864351842, 'recall': 0.5770328102710414, 'f1': 0.5544803902907339, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis implies the complement is meaningful. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThen wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said doesn't make life have a point<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said once I die, all memories and all point is gone
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think this isn't ALWAYS true. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEvery middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidweight lifting is by far the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe squat is often referred to as one of the best
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI might be losing precious time by joining the military
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAll the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAllowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ) 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsure
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtheir will always be a few bad apples
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said doesn't have a spy network ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7169811320754716, 'agreement': 0.5022421524663677, 'direct_attack': 0.2159090909090909, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21, 'partial': 0.3023255813953488}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8150134048257373, 'agreement': 0.48695652173913045, 'direct_attack': 0.12179487179487179, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2413793103448276, 'partial': 0.13541666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7628607277289837, 'agreement': 0.49448123620309054, 'direct_attack': 0.1557377049180328, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2245989304812834, 'partial': 0.18705035971223022}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5663338088445078, 'recall': 0.5663338088445078, 'f1': 0.5663338088445078, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3894915913692558, 'recall': 0.36011215507424676, 'f1': 0.3649457918087241, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5346852308069457, 'recall': 0.5663338088445078, 'f1': 0.545047730111172, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDoesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said doesn't make life have a point<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said once I die, all memories and all point is gone
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOr are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidJoseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou are correct that this is false. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMy co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMy background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's either the extreme left, or the extreme right. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7210103329506314, 'agreement': 0.4826086956521739, 'direct_attack': 0.23423423423423423, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23880597014925373, 'partial': 0.2857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8418230563002681, 'agreement': 0.4826086956521739, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1839080459770115, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7767470624613483, 'agreement': 0.4826086956521739, 'direct_attack': 0.19475655430711608, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20779220779220778, 'partial': 0.2105263157894737}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.579885877318117, 'recall': 0.579885877318117, 'f1': 0.579885877318117, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3924747037401158, 'recall': 0.3683346262525574, 'f1': 0.37448616720046396, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5380849209388395, 'recall': 0.579885877318117, 'f1': 0.5543521408985089, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they die, they won't know either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI completely disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you're really good at something, especially in college, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidConsequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe only issue with that is it's very subjective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome users may like it, others may not. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a 800-odd page legislative titan
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOr are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's a bit extreme and morbid
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidC and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmaybe you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidlimit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPrison? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That was terrific. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, Congregationalists and Universaliists. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said end up generating even more waste
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIndividuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7142857142857143, 'agreement': 0.4954128440366973, 'direct_attack': 0.24761904761904763, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23880597014925373, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8512064343163539, 'agreement': 0.46956521739130436, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1839080459770115, 'partial': 0.15625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7767584097859327, 'agreement': 0.48214285714285715, 'direct_attack': 0.1992337164750958, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20779220779220778, 'partial': 0.19736842105263158}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5820256776034237, 'recall': 0.5820256776034237, 'f1': 0.5820256776034237, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3927961437895712, 'recall': 0.3655192728702673, 'f1': 0.37265912244974503, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5368738893968691, 'recall': 0.5820256776034237, 'f1': 0.5538789609059734, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyeah. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey'd have given him a big hooked nose
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlmost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ) 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI have a Masters degree. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't see your point there<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter... 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7146067415730337, 'agreement': 0.49099099099099097, 'direct_attack': 0.24761904761904763, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2421875, 'partial': 0.2807017543859649}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8514056224899599, 'agreement': 0.47391304347826085, 'direct_attack': 0.16666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1781609195402299, 'partial': 0.16842105263157894}, 'f1': {'support': 0.777031154551008, 'agreement': 0.4823008849557522, 'direct_attack': 0.1992337164750958, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2052980132450331, 'partial': 0.2105263157894737}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5834522111269614, 'recall': 0.5834522111269614, 'f1': 0.5834522111269614, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3952212069138074, 'recall': 0.3677134609613393, 'f1': 0.3748780170032725, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5379279792997306, 'recall': 0.5834522111269614, 'f1': 0.5550454993325084, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA person doing that is probably an asshole, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidbecause we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBut most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said What particular aspects do you find toxic? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7134831460674157, 'agreement': 0.4976958525345622, 'direct_attack': 0.26666666666666666, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23880597014925373, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8500669344042838, 'agreement': 0.47161572052401746, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1839080459770115, 'partial': 0.15625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7758094074526574, 'agreement': 0.48430493273542596, 'direct_attack': 0.21455938697318008, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20779220779220778, 'partial': 0.19736842105263158}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 229, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5834522111269614, 'recall': 0.5834522111269614, 'f1': 0.5834522111269614, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3969017556550082, 'recall': 0.36826557607849847, 'f1': 0.3759668712012206, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5390947110292654, 'recall': 0.5834522111269614, 'f1': 0.5556418929445509, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLosing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they die, they won't know either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTake for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7136465324384788, 'agreement': 0.4954545454545455, 'direct_attack': 0.26732673267326734, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24806201550387597, 'partial': 0.27586206896551724}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8540829986613119, 'agreement': 0.4759825327510917, 'direct_attack': 0.17307692307692307, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1839080459770115, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7775746496039, 'agreement': 0.4855233853006682, 'direct_attack': 0.21011673151750973, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21122112211221122, 'partial': 0.2077922077922078}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 229, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5863052781740371, 'recall': 0.5863052781740371, 'f1': 0.5863052781740371, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.400070379007137, 'recall': 0.370743433426601, 'f1': 0.37844561926529935, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5405859987560829, 'recall': 0.5863052781740371, 'f1': 0.5574264306706666, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOr are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidDifferent branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe Marines aren't knows for their... Genius... 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidelevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's also a product of individual stupidity, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said well that's your own gullibility. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm Unitarian Universalist
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince the majority of farms are large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidShould young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis actually is a good point. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said * No * theorem is " proof "! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTheorems are explanations * of * facts
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAllowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7109375, 'agreement': 0.5023696682464455, 'direct_attack': 0.27184466019417475, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24812030075187969, 'partial': 0.288135593220339}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8527443105756358, 'agreement': 0.4608695652173913, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.17894736842105263}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7754108338405356, 'agreement': 0.48072562358276644, 'direct_attack': 0.2162162162162162, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21498371335504884, 'partial': 0.22077922077922077}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5855920114122682, 'recall': 0.5855920114122682, 'f1': 0.5855920114122682, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40428154448256776, 'recall': 0.3723407192230105, 'f1': 0.3816231215547576, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5417752616788396, 'recall': 0.5855920114122682, 'f1': 0.5577102055138734, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAt best
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seriously strains credulity to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidConsider the goal the creators of CoD have. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThose time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhen plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidother plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI did do the completionist run! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidtheir poison should be kept out of the minds of children
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidStalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow would you even get rid of networking. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople talk. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.711731843575419, 'agreement': 0.5, 'direct_attack': 0.27450980392156865, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2462686567164179, 'partial': 0.3050847457627119}, 'recall': {'support': 0.853887399463807, 'agreement': 0.4608695652173913, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.1875}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7763558805606338, 'agreement': 0.4796380090497738, 'direct_attack': 0.21705426356589147, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21428571428571427, 'partial': 0.23225806451612901}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5863052781740371, 'recall': 0.5863052781740371, 'f1': 0.5863052781740371, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4075190099952235, 'recall': 0.3742798633164342, 'f1': 0.3839183863956284, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5427349262345965, 'recall': 0.5863052781740371, 'f1': 0.5584316566157079, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said they do not have a belief that they are better. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThis Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidchildren are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt would still be illegal to kill a robber
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLand before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople don't actually " horde " money in couches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmoney that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSchools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYoung impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhich should be enough to increase intelligence
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7102908277404921, 'agreement': 0.5023474178403756, 'direct_attack': 0.27450980392156865, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2462686567164179, 'partial': 0.3050847457627119}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8512064343163539, 'agreement': 0.4652173913043478, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.1875}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7743902439024389, 'agreement': 0.48306997742663654, 'direct_attack': 0.21705426356589147, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21428571428571427, 'partial': 0.23225806451612901}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5855920114122682, 'recall': 0.5855920114122682, 'f1': 0.5855920114122682, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4077002903963132, 'recall': 0.3746132355043349, 'f1': 0.38421165273936203, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5423532631036629, 'recall': 0.5855920114122682, 'f1': 0.5579487663016317, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Surely, LESS would be better? 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It is a series of mistakes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat's more a failure of the system than the system itself
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidJust because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.70996640537514, 'agreement': 0.5023474178403756, 'direct_attack': 0.27450980392156865, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2426470588235294, 'partial': 0.29310344827586204}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8498659517426274, 'agreement': 0.4652173913043478, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.17708333333333334}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7736424649176327, 'agreement': 0.48306997742663654, 'direct_attack': 0.21705426356589147, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21290322580645163, 'partial': 0.2207792207792208}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5841654778887304, 'recall': 0.5841654778887304, 'f1': 0.5841654778887304, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4045148268472952, 'recall': 0.3722618056562562, 'f1': 0.3814898304991666, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5409107654740959, 'recall': 0.5841654778887304, 'f1': 0.5565932990285929, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthese versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm a middle aged female. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou make a really good point. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese groups are always extreme fringes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI like them both for different reasons
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said it obviously does<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhile this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTherefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would love a better measure of intelligence. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7093153759820426, 'agreement': 0.4930875576036866, 'direct_attack': 0.2828282828282828, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2463768115942029, 'partial': 0.2982456140350877}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8471849865951743, 'agreement': 0.4652173913043478, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19540229885057472, 'partial': 0.17708333333333334}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7721441661576054, 'agreement': 0.47874720357941836, 'direct_attack': 0.21960784313725493, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21794871794871795, 'partial': 0.22222222222222224}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5834522111269614, 'recall': 0.5834522111269614, 'f1': 0.5834522111269614, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40597072840866055, 'recall': 0.3728750379141219, 'f1': 0.38213403060904383, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.540785852366208, 'recall': 0.5834522111269614, 'f1': 0.556096033211599, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Its dominance there was not mere geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said to petition the government to make regulation changes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think it would<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think I should<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I don't hear " you're so good at biology " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidUnfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFeels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTHAT is the issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmy experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think that builds my initial point. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidParents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7080536912751678, 'agreement': 0.4930232558139535, 'direct_attack': 0.2828282828282828, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2391304347826087, 'partial': 0.2857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8485254691689008, 'agreement': 0.4608695652173913, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.771951219512195, 'agreement': 0.4764044943820224, 'direct_attack': 0.21960784313725493, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21153846153846154, 'partial': 0.2105263157894737}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5820256776034237, 'recall': 0.5820256776034237, 'f1': 0.5820256776034237, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4017499900828597, 'recall': 0.3690408105907863, 'f1': 0.37800566687188153, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.538346563288475, 'recall': 0.5820256776034237, 'f1': 0.5540126145626648, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that phenomenon has been around forever 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe guy stood up and tried to restart his car
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidseeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidthe reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidGood meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUniversalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore passed down by parents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7083798882681565, 'agreement': 0.49295774647887325, 'direct_attack': 0.27722772277227725, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24087591240875914, 'partial': 0.2857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8498659517426274, 'agreement': 0.45652173913043476, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7726995734308348, 'agreement': 0.47404063205417607, 'direct_attack': 0.21789883268482488, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2122186495176849, 'partial': 0.2105263157894737}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5820256776034237, 'recall': 0.5820256776034237, 'f1': 0.5820256776034237, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4010311111284704, 'recall': 0.3684393418881403, 'f1': 0.3774768006953989, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5381028411400544, 'recall': 0.5820256776034237, 'f1': 0.5539172727407722, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFor one thing, I can't swim. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSatire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPolitical parties appeal to these learned biases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMonopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidForming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI completely disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you're really good at something, especially in college, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7088465845464725, 'agreement': 0.4883720930232558, 'direct_attack': 0.28, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2391304347826087, 'partial': 0.2857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8473895582329317, 'agreement': 0.4585152838427948, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7719512195121951, 'agreement': 0.4729729729729729, 'direct_attack': 0.21875, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21153846153846154, 'partial': 0.2105263157894737}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 229, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5813124108416547, 'recall': 0.5813124108416547, 'f1': 0.5813124108416547, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4004126796133245, 'recall': 0.36834277212867317, 'f1': 0.3771477939626206, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5378479850494193, 'recall': 0.5813124108416547, 'f1': 0.5535674681953654, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Can you name at least one game that has spectacular change/s or uniqueness among its predecessors and genre? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] A few : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Elder Scrolls [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -GTA [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Dragon Age ( With Inquisition ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Metroid Prime [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Mass Effect [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The list goes on. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right, <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Perhaps this is a bad analogy
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That is probably one of the biggest reasons. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There are plenty of professions that do great things for society<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said What about teachers? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI grant you that there is merit to that idea
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saiddegrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said No
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIs a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidhasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7088465845464725, 'agreement': 0.49074074074074076, 'direct_attack': 0.28, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23357664233576642, 'partial': 0.2857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8473895582329317, 'agreement': 0.462882096069869, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1839080459770115, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7719512195121951, 'agreement': 0.4764044943820225, 'direct_attack': 0.21875, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2057877813504823, 'partial': 0.2105263157894737}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 229, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5813124108416547, 'recall': 0.5813124108416547, 'f1': 0.5813124108416547, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3997756506674531, 'recall': 0.3680667092867317, 'f1': 0.3766839622068347, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5375456030533806, 'recall': 0.5813124108416547, 'f1': 0.5534142585305751, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is the problem with X-factors and complexity
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it didn't solve much
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConsider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidJust as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7088465845464725, 'agreement': 0.4930875576036866, 'direct_attack': 0.27722772277227725, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23357664233576642, 'partial': 0.2962962962962963}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8473895582329317, 'agreement': 0.4672489082969432, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1839080459770115, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7719512195121951, 'agreement': 0.4798206278026906, 'direct_attack': 0.21789883268482488, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2057877813504823, 'partial': 0.21333333333333335}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 229, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5820256776034237, 'recall': 0.5820256776034237, 'f1': 0.5820256776034237, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40180696071089983, 'recall': 0.36894007173214655, 'f1': 0.37775835893670523, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5383450458707577, 'recall': 0.5820256776034237, 'f1': 0.5540697407961787, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCompare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it didn't solve much
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThink of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI called the ER
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think networking is one of them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTHAT is the issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmy experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7109111361079865, 'agreement': 0.4976958525345622, 'direct_attack': 0.28, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23776223776223776, 'partial': 0.2830188679245283}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8460508701472557, 'agreement': 0.46956521739130436, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19540229885057472, 'partial': 0.15789473684210525}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7726161369193154, 'agreement': 0.48322147651006714, 'direct_attack': 0.21875, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21451104100946372, 'partial': 0.2027027027027027}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5827389443651926, 'recall': 0.5827389443651926, 'f1': 0.5827389443651926, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.401877618865863, 'recall': 0.36968006054368396, 'f1': 0.37836027142830975, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5402696765899249, 'recall': 0.5827389443651926, 'f1': 0.555629009820576, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople have different goals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidothers think aesthetics is all that matter
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidassuming they all die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut this view is separate from the objective success of the series. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy point is that a responsible today allows for a better future
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch as... talking about the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe doll is worth $10. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Yes 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSlut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Don't they need locking up in padded cells too? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBeing proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7094594594594594, 'agreement': 0.4953271028037383, 'direct_attack': 0.27184466019417475, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23776223776223776, 'partial': 0.2777777777777778}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8445040214477212, 'agreement': 0.4608695652173913, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19540229885057472, 'partial': 0.15625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7711138310893513, 'agreement': 0.4774774774774775, 'direct_attack': 0.2162162162162162, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21451104100946372, 'partial': 0.19999999999999998}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.579885877318117, 'recall': 0.579885877318117, 'f1': 0.579885877318117, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3984342475994776, 'recall': 0.3673026130005733, 'f1': 0.37586371315850176, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5375371279808872, 'recall': 0.579885877318117, 'f1': 0.5530138292994666, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmath was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMoney circulates multiple times in a system
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7081930415263749, 'agreement': 0.49295774647887325, 'direct_attack': 0.27184466019417475, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23404255319148937, 'partial': 0.2777777777777778}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8447121820615796, 'agreement': 0.45652173913043476, 'direct_attack': 0.18064516129032257, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.15625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7704517704517705, 'agreement': 0.47404063205417607, 'direct_attack': 0.21705426356589147, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20952380952380953, 'partial': 0.19999999999999998}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 155, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.579172610556348, 'recall': 0.579172610556348, 'f1': 0.579172610556348, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.39696315583373804, 'recall': 0.365556850979226, 'f1': 0.37421409511912945, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5363241633112878, 'recall': 0.579172610556348, 'f1': 0.5519667415191079, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt will certainly make you a colder person. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWell, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography " 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou are doing 2 things<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I do care about the welfare of food animals
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWeights<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBest in terms of time investment? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidreducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSee my user history for reference
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIs a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7078651685393258, 'agreement': 0.4883720930232558, 'direct_attack': 0.27450980392156865, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23404255319148937, 'partial': 0.2777777777777778}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8433734939759037, 'agreement': 0.45652173913043476, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1907514450867052, 'partial': 0.15625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7697006719609041, 'agreement': 0.47191011235955055, 'direct_attack': 0.21705426356589147, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21019108280254778, 'partial': 0.19999999999999998}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 173, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5784593437945792, 'recall': 0.5784593437945792, 'f1': 0.5784593437945792, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.39651347929068353, 'recall': 0.36527677153604465, 'f1': 0.37377122613777874, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5357206990547677, 'recall': 0.5784593437945792, 'f1': 0.5513047433941597, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat's not the same as thinking you're better than other people
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidEh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou misinterpreted
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidVegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthroughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPeter Jackson agrees with me : 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFeels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidif we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7078651685393258, 'agreement': 0.4883720930232558, 'direct_attack': 0.27184466019417475, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2357142857142857, 'partial': 0.2777777777777778}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8445040214477212, 'agreement': 0.45652173913043476, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.15625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7701711491442542, 'agreement': 0.47191011235955055, 'direct_attack': 0.2162162162162162, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21019108280254778, 'partial': 0.19999999999999998}, 'support': {'support': 746, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5784593437945792, 'recall': 0.5784593437945792, 'f1': 0.5784593437945792, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.39631479704976397, 'recall': 0.3652836224958257, 'f1': 0.37369771210451375, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5352936636925318, 'recall': 0.5784593437945792, 'f1': 0.5510627540953519, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidchanging the US laws would not change international laws
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhen I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ok
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You are correct, 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7094594594594594, 'agreement': 0.49074074074074076, 'direct_attack': 0.27184466019417475, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23404255319148937, 'partial': 0.2777777777777778}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8433734939759037, 'agreement': 0.4608695652173913, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1907514450867052, 'partial': 0.15625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7706422018348624, 'agreement': 0.4753363228699552, 'direct_attack': 0.2162162162162162, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21019108280254778, 'partial': 0.19999999999999998}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 230, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 173, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.579172610556348, 'recall': 0.579172610556348, 'f1': 0.579172610556348, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3967730382727284, 'recall': 0.36614633675343594, 'f1': 0.3744771647447163, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5366621839840742, 'recall': 0.579172610556348, 'f1': 0.5522752254531401, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidpeople are different from you<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFor someone other hetero guy it might not be. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEverything is polluted to hell
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidShe's obviously an all-round good and kind person
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAt the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said~~slaves~~ robots
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidForced abortions? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7085201793721974, 'agreement': 0.48826291079812206, 'direct_attack': 0.27184466019417475, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2357142857142857, 'partial': 0.2777777777777778}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8460508701472557, 'agreement': 0.45414847161572053, 'direct_attack': 0.1794871794871795, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'partial': 0.15625}, 'f1': {'support': 0.771201952410006, 'agreement': 0.47058823529411764, 'direct_attack': 0.2162162162162162, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21019108280254778, 'partial': 0.19999999999999998}, 'support': {'support': 747, 'agreement': 229, 'direct_attack': 156, 'undercutter_attack': 174, 'partial': 96}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.579172610556348, 'recall': 0.579172610556348, 'f1': 0.579172610556348, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.39642396277131153, 'recall': 0.36511833873278976, 'f1': 0.3736394973445775, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5357813836911876, 'recall': 0.579172610556348, 'f1': 0.5516088034736094, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSimply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative, 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMany other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMost people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEducation
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')


		-------------RUN 2-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it didn't solve much<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe two armed police officers guarding the place. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHe's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they are trying to get americans to vote for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You can make arguments for something like Toy Story
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.125, 'agreement': 0.16873889875666073, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.07790821771611527}, 'recall': {'support': 0.0011668611435239206, 'agreement': 0.35315985130111527, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.6886792452830188}, 'f1': {'support': 0.002312138728323699, 'agreement': 0.22836538461538464, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.13998082454458294}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.11206896551724138, 'recall': 0.11206896551724138, 'f1': 0.11206896551724138, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.07432942329455519, 'recall': 0.2086011915455316, 'f1': 0.07413166957765825, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.10661408146117371, 'recall': 0.11206896551724138, 'f1': 0.051889760446576706, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidcertainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidevents that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7802907915993538, 'agreement': 0.3720136518771331, 'direct_attack': 0.14622641509433962, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1282051282051282, 'partial': 0.0851063829787234}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5635939323220537, 'agreement': 0.4052044609665427, 'direct_attack': 0.45925925925925926, 'undercutter_attack': 0.07092198581560284, 'partial': 0.07547169811320754}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6544715447154472, 'agreement': 0.3879003558718861, 'direct_attack': 0.221824686940966, 'undercutter_attack': 0.09132420091324202, 'partial': 0.08}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.44562334217506633, 'recall': 0.44562334217506633, 'f1': 0.44562334217506633, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3023684739509356, 'recall': 0.3148902672953332, 'f1': 0.28710415768830827, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5408618345265243, 'recall': 0.44562334217506633, 'f1': 0.4751527550507117, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt depends on the person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidExercise regimens depend entirely on your goals. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThat is a really good point. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOf course not! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHad a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think those boards are bit more niche and have less users. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou're carrying and you rear end a guy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew?? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saiddon't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7441253263707572, 'agreement': 0.55, 'direct_attack': 0.1259259259259259, 'undercutter_attack': 0.16993464052287582, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6651108518086347, 'agreement': 0.20446096654275092, 'direct_attack': 0.1259259259259259, 'undercutter_attack': 0.5531914893617021, 'partial': 0.07547169811320754}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7024029574861368, 'agreement': 0.2981029810298103, 'direct_attack': 0.1259259259259259, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26, 'partial': 0.10389610389610389}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.4827586206896552, 'recall': 0.4827586206896552, 'f1': 0.4827586206896552, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3513305118972452, 'recall': 0.32483218635044425, 'f1': 0.29806559366759544, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5598758989921294, 'recall': 0.4827586206896552, 'f1': 0.4952400686177885, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHad a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAnd then their descendants will die, on and on and on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFines? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Can you name at least one game that has spectacular change/s or uniqueness among its predecessors and genre? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] A few : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Elder Scrolls [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -GTA [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Dragon Age ( With Inquisition ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Metroid Prime [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] -Mass Effect [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The list goes on. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOne reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTo me, it is as if my life had never happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidCheating, as I define it, is a choice. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidis a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidDifferent branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIs political power in the US held by elected officials? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine this country to be populated by billions of faces
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8072289156626506, 'agreement': 0.3986013986013986, 'direct_attack': 0.16, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15326633165829145, 'partial': 0.14691943127962084}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5472578763127188, 'agreement': 0.21189591078066913, 'direct_attack': 0.2074074074074074, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4326241134751773, 'partial': 0.29245283018867924}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6522948539638388, 'agreement': 0.27669902912621364, 'direct_attack': 0.1806451612903226, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22634508348794063, 'partial': 0.19558359621451102}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.42838196286472147, 'recall': 0.42838196286472147, 'f1': 0.42838196286472147, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3332032154403923, 'recall': 0.3383276276329304, 'f1': 0.3063135448165653, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.568834860362153, 'recall': 0.42838196286472147, 'f1': 0.4711421375508572, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore more likely to survive and advance the human race. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthough I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSecond, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have some more backing behind that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthese versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7548387096774194, 'agreement': 0.4517766497461929, 'direct_attack': 0.23880597014925373, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21951219512195122, 'partial': 0.09}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6826137689614936, 'agreement': 0.3308550185873606, 'direct_attack': 0.11851851851851852, 'undercutter_attack': 0.574468085106383, 'partial': 0.08490566037735849}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7169117647058825, 'agreement': 0.3819742489270387, 'direct_attack': 0.15841584158415845, 'undercutter_attack': 0.31764705882352945, 'partial': 0.08737864077669902}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5172413793103449, 'recall': 0.5172413793103449, 'f1': 0.5172413793103449, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3509867049389635, 'recall': 0.3582722103102228, 'f1': 0.33246551096346166, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5577949061390044, 'recall': 0.5172413793103449, 'f1': 0.5255841943929866, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmany laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWell, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography " 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidany reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEvery middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8037383177570093, 'agreement': 0.5245901639344263, 'direct_attack': 0.14102564102564102, 'undercutter_attack': 0.13648293963254593, 'partial': 0.10526315789473684}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6021003500583431, 'agreement': 0.2379182156133829, 'direct_attack': 0.08148148148148149, 'undercutter_attack': 0.36879432624113473, 'partial': 0.2830188679245283}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6884589726484323, 'agreement': 0.3273657289002558, 'direct_attack': 0.10328638497652583, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1992337164750958, 'partial': 0.15345268542199486}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.4462864721485411, 'recall': 0.4462864721485411, 'f1': 0.4462864721485411, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.34222004404887185, 'recall': 0.3146626482637741, 'f1': 0.2943594976844609, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.583129272665524, 'recall': 0.4462864721485411, 'f1': 0.4883105578802561, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBeing fair is, at best, a secondary goal. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm straight. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIdeally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI grant you that there is merit to that idea
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI completely understand your distaste with the IQ test. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbetter than SAT scores, right? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said living on is better than just about any death
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAnd then their descendants will die, on and on and on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd they consistently perform this goal well year after year. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEven someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said This might be true
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said this is obviously extreme<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThroughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlmost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ) 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7711313394018205, 'agreement': 0.5454545454545454, 'direct_attack': 0.16279069767441862, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17015706806282724, 'partial': 0.16740088105726872}, 'recall': {'support': 0.691948658109685, 'agreement': 0.08921933085501858, 'direct_attack': 0.1037037037037037, 'undercutter_attack': 0.46099290780141844, 'partial': 0.3584905660377358}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7293972939729397, 'agreement': 0.15335463258785942, 'direct_attack': 0.12669683257918554, 'undercutter_attack': 0.248565965583174, 'partial': 0.22822822822822822}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.48673740053050396, 'recall': 0.48673740053050396, 'f1': 0.48673740053050396, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3633869063301761, 'recall': 0.34087103330151225, 'f1': 0.2972485905902774, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.577785288308759, 'recall': 0.48673740053050396, 'f1': 0.49249996209453145, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIn this sense, it is not done for attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other * 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Quite honestly it dilutes it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe squat is often referred to as one of the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidworks your legs and core quite hard
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that phenomenon has been around forever 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said they do not have a belief that they are better. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they have the belief that they are American
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe Marines aren't knows for their... Genius... <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch as... talking about the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.8277310924369747, 'agreement': 0.4, 'direct_attack': 0.25, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15508885298869143, 'partial': 0.1}, 'recall': {'support': 0.4597432905484247, 'agreement': 0.42379182156133827, 'direct_attack': 0.08888888888888889, 'undercutter_attack': 0.6808510638297872, 'partial': 0.07547169811320754}, 'f1': {'support': 0.5911477869467366, 'agreement': 0.41155234657039713, 'direct_attack': 0.13114754098360656, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25263157894736843, 'partial': 0.08602150537634408}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.41379310344827586, 'recall': 0.41379310344827586, 'f1': 0.41379310344827586, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.34656398908513325, 'recall': 0.34574935258832934, 'f1': 0.2945001517648905, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.585665168759876, 'recall': 0.41379310344827586, 'f1': 0.4507728679542761, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidonly in a very narrow sense<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidin the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Its dominance there was not mere geography
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said no one is going to dispute you<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidat the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNo pain, no awareness, just cessation of life
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnly the rich could afford to be pale. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it also takes demand away from the larger farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI see this as a major flaw in democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIs political power in the US held by elected officials? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. " 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI see this as a major flaw in democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said We didn't even buy the books, much less read them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6873126873126874, 'agreement': 0.5588235294117647, 'direct_attack': 0.35294117647058826, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2066115702479339, 'partial': 0.17791411042944785}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8028004667444574, 'agreement': 0.1412639405204461, 'direct_attack': 0.08888888888888889, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3546099290780142, 'partial': 0.27358490566037735}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7405812701829924, 'agreement': 0.2255192878338279, 'direct_attack': 0.14201183431952663, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2610966057441253, 'partial': 0.21561338289962825}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5417771883289124, 'recall': 0.5417771883289124, 'f1': 0.5417771883289124, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.39672061477448445, 'recall': 0.3322296261784368, 'f1': 0.3169644761960201, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5537060267723789, 'recall': 0.5417771883289124, 'f1': 0.5133846648571236, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI completely understand your distaste with the IQ test. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnother thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Businesses are and should be designed to be effective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAny company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou make your own purpose in life
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think it would<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it obviously does
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlthough I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6972972972972973, 'agreement': 0.46629213483146065, 'direct_attack': 0.23214285714285715, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20817843866171004, 'partial': 0.0875}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7526254375729288, 'agreement': 0.30855018587360594, 'direct_attack': 0.0962962962962963, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3971631205673759, 'partial': 0.0660377358490566}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7239057239057239, 'agreement': 0.37136465324384793, 'direct_attack': 0.13612565445026178, 'undercutter_attack': 0.27317073170731704, 'partial': 0.07526881720430106}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.53315649867374, 'recall': 0.53315649867374, 'f1': 0.53315649867374, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.33828214558666503, 'recall': 0.32413455523185275, 'f1': 0.31596711610229034, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5258513352911363, 'recall': 0.53315649867374, 'f1': 0.5206610266942795, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidShe is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow would you even get rid of networking. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpeople talk. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nope. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWay less than my folk. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saiddo you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt isn't some objective fact about people. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidtoday he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ). 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe air force isn't right for me<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I couldn't fly
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7155756207674944, 'agreement': 0.49732620320855614, 'direct_attack': 0.22549019607843138, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20786516853932585, 'partial': 0.15483870967741936}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7397899649941657, 'agreement': 0.34572490706319703, 'direct_attack': 0.17037037037037037, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2624113475177305, 'partial': 0.22641509433962265}, 'f1': {'support': 0.727481353987378, 'agreement': 0.40789473684210525, 'direct_attack': 0.1940928270042194, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23197492163009406, 'partial': 0.1839080459770115}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5377984084880637, 'recall': 0.5377984084880637, 'f1': 0.5377984084880637, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36021917965424544, 'recall': 0.3489423368570172, 'f1': 0.3490703770881617, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5458833714332121, 'recall': 0.5377984084880637, 'f1': 0.5381833243015155, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMeat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwe don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said even removal of the pieces entirely
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seriously strains credulity to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7030752916224814, 'agreement': 0.5609756097560976, 'direct_attack': 0.16911764705882354, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20673076923076922, 'partial': 0.1326530612244898}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7736289381563594, 'agreement': 0.25650557620817843, 'direct_attack': 0.17037037037037037, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3049645390070922, 'partial': 0.12264150943396226}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7366666666666666, 'agreement': 0.3520408163265306, 'direct_attack': 0.16974169741697417, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2464183381088825, 'partial': 0.12745098039215688}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5377984084880637, 'recall': 0.5377984084880637, 'f1': 0.5377984084880637, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35451047577853234, 'recall': 0.32562218663519255, 'f1': 0.32646369978224216, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5434211599795307, 'recall': 0.5377984084880637, 'f1': 0.5286420634425614, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome of your criticisms are definitely valid
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI have a Masters degree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saiddegrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidShitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidpursuing those things is irrational<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople don't actually " horde " money in couches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome of it is retained as capital by the owners
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey've got their own lives to worry about
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidyou take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  said Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSchools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYoung impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " inn " is arguably a poor translation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidin some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7084233261339092, 'agreement': 0.5407407407407407, 'direct_attack': 0.18181818181818182, 'undercutter_attack': 0.203125, 'partial': 0.17164179104477612}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7654609101516919, 'agreement': 0.27137546468401486, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2765957446808511, 'partial': 0.2169811320754717}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7358384744812113, 'agreement': 0.3613861386138614, 'direct_attack': 0.17187500000000003, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23423423423423423, 'partial': 0.19166666666666665}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5391246684350133, 'recall': 0.5391246684350133, 'f1': 0.5391246684350133, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3611498079475216, 'recall': 0.33867524291099854, 'f1': 0.33900010279919474, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5463913522229578, 'recall': 0.5391246684350133, 'f1': 0.5334040202992177, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's not. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidassuming they all die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike a total of all of them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch as... talking about the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7070815450643777, 'agreement': 0.5645161290322581, 'direct_attack': 0.19008264462809918, 'undercutter_attack': 0.195, 'partial': 0.16030534351145037}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7689614935822637, 'agreement': 0.26022304832713755, 'direct_attack': 0.17037037037037037, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2765957446808511, 'partial': 0.19811320754716982}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7367244270542203, 'agreement': 0.356234096692112, 'direct_attack': 0.1796875, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22873900293255134, 'partial': 0.17721518987341772}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5384615384615384, 'recall': 0.5384615384615384, 'f1': 0.5384615384615384, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36339713244723704, 'recall': 0.3348527729015585, 'f1': 0.33572004331046024, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5490532137048119, 'recall': 0.5384615384615384, 'f1': 0.5321582414029953, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCertainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ]
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhich should be enough to increase intelligence
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEvery exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIs political power in the US held by elected officials? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGlobal stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7060702875399361, 'agreement': 0.5772357723577236, 'direct_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'undercutter_attack': 0.195, 'partial': 0.16153846153846155}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7736289381563594, 'agreement': 0.26394052044609667, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2765957446808511, 'partial': 0.19811320754716982}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7383073496659242, 'agreement': 0.3622448979591837, 'direct_attack': 0.1752988047808765, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22873900293255134, 'partial': 0.17796610169491525}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5411140583554377, 'recall': 0.5411140583554377, 'f1': 0.5411140583554377, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36589993876998295, 'recall': 0.335048274758688, 'f1': 0.3365112314066902, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5507958782393182, 'recall': 0.5411140583554377, 'f1': 0.5337899343854685, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've always had lots of male friends. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwe don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMany people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they die, they won't know either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAnd then their descendants will die, on and on and on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI lost hope often because things felt hopeless
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe only issue with that is it's very subjective. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " inn " is arguably a poor translation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said - What is the state of the school? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOnce everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe air force isn't right for me<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I couldn't fly
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7059447983014862, 'agreement': 0.5772357723577236, 'direct_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19402985074626866, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7759626604434072, 'agreement': 0.26394052044609667, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2765957446808511, 'partial': 0.19811320754716982}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7392996108949417, 'agreement': 0.3622448979591837, 'direct_attack': 0.1752988047808765, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2280701754385965, 'partial': 0.18103448275862066}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5424403183023873, 'recall': 0.5424403183023873, 'f1': 0.5424403183023873, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36670645209718766, 'recall': 0.33551501921609755, 'f1': 0.33718959436644386, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5509943228158845, 'recall': 0.5424403183023873, 'f1': 0.5345069845110475, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou are doing 2 things<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidseeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said From this, we can conclude that the egg came first. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidtheir nervous system is sufficiently different from us
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will die too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI completely understand your distaste with the IQ test. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChristianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIdeally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidcertain Native American practices still have vestiges of this
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhich only happens if players don't negotiate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou may think you aren't guilty of this<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidby virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have some more backing behind that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidless useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7053191489361702, 'agreement': 0.5725806451612904, 'direct_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'undercutter_attack': 0.195, 'partial': 0.171875}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7736289381563594, 'agreement': 0.26394052044609667, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2765957446808511, 'partial': 0.20754716981132076}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7378964941569283, 'agreement': 0.361323155216285, 'direct_attack': 0.1752988047808765, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22873900293255134, 'partial': 0.18803418803418803}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5417771883289124, 'recall': 0.5417771883289124, 'f1': 0.5417771883289124, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36688599330225075, 'recall': 0.33693506721151817, 'f1': 0.3382583290241658, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5502651873093813, 'recall': 0.5417771883289124, 'f1': 0.5340997256208223, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidonly in a very narrow sense
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidif you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou can create your own meaning. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMy co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said And the cheater is the source of the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEnergy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince the majority of farms are large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpartly, 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAn issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think is flawed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidif they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidCaveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7051961823966065, 'agreement': 0.576, 'direct_attack': 0.19298245614035087, 'undercutter_attack': 0.195, 'partial': 0.1746031746031746}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7759626604434072, 'agreement': 0.26765799256505574, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2765957446808511, 'partial': 0.20754716981132076}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7388888888888888, 'agreement': 0.365482233502538, 'direct_attack': 0.17670682730923695, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22873900293255134, 'partial': 0.1896551724137931}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5437665782493368, 'recall': 0.5437665782493368, 'f1': 0.5437665782493368, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3687563626280264, 'recall': 0.3381453060927196, 'f1': 0.33989442500940165, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5512948915124507, 'recall': 0.5437665782493368, 'f1': 0.5356456020995088, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSexual attraction is not something that just shuts off<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwomen and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes, intelligence matters. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLosing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhat would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said - What about a one parent household? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, Congregationalists and Universaliists. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think is flawed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidhad those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7053854276663146, 'agreement': 0.5806451612903226, 'direct_attack': 0.19298245614035087, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19696969696969696, 'partial': 0.176}, 'recall': {'support': 0.779463243873979, 'agreement': 0.26765799256505574, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2765957446808511, 'partial': 0.20754716981132076}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7405764966740577, 'agreement': 0.366412213740458, 'direct_attack': 0.17670682730923695, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23008849557522124, 'partial': 0.19047619047619047}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5457559681697612, 'recall': 0.5457559681697612, 'f1': 0.5457559681697612, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.370396548413337, 'recall': 0.3388454227788339, 'f1': 0.34085204475503283, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5525134076583574, 'recall': 0.5457559681697612, 'f1': 0.5369544555034351, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSix months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidgun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew?? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'l begin by saying it has never happened to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidThese illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7067510548523207, 'agreement': 0.584, 'direct_attack': 0.19298245614035087, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1989795918367347, 'partial': 0.176}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7817969661610268, 'agreement': 0.27137546468401486, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2765957446808511, 'partial': 0.20754716981132076}, 'f1': {'support': 0.742382271468144, 'agreement': 0.37055837563451777, 'direct_attack': 0.17670682730923695, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2314540059347181, 'partial': 0.19047619047619047}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5477453580901857, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5477453580901857, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.37174262056588125, 'recall': 0.3400556616600353, 'f1': 0.34231553416456145, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5540758673981205, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5388479591564344, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidif we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is empowering, not attention seeking. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidProbably not. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhen I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhat about that makes someone feel good? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAt this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think its feasible, though... 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's either the extreme left, or the extreme right. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI get seasick lol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm sure with the right culture it would
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell we have the benefit of history. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7069327731092437, 'agreement': 0.5873015873015873, 'direct_attack': 0.19298245614035087, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19791666666666666, 'partial': 0.1774193548387097}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7852975495915986, 'agreement': 0.275092936802974, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.20754716981132076}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7440574903261471, 'agreement': 0.37468354430379747, 'direct_attack': 0.17670682730923695, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22822822822822822, 'partial': 0.19130434782608696}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5497347480106101, 'recall': 0.5497347480106101, 'f1': 0.5497347480106101, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3725105676113117, 'recall': 0.3400808330536294, 'f1': 0.3429960875986994, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5547684660017238, 'recall': 0.5497347480106101, 'f1': 0.5402924438751472, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidcardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just beyond the scope for many people<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGeography certainly has to be part of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I support these efforts when they're available. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saiddespite how much you love your dog
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThat is what life is like<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidReading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidgun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThose time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7061909758656874, 'agreement': 0.592, 'direct_attack': 0.1896551724137931, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19791666666666666, 'partial': 0.1721311475409836}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7852975495915986, 'agreement': 0.275092936802974, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.19811320754716982}, 'f1': {'support': 0.743646408839779, 'agreement': 0.3756345177664975, 'direct_attack': 0.1752988047808765, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22822822822822822, 'partial': 0.18421052631578946}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5490716180371353, 'recall': 0.5490716180371353, 'f1': 0.5490716180371353, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3715787924974262, 'recall': 0.3381940406007992, 'f1': 0.3414036971862341, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5545154285358755, 'recall': 0.5490716180371353, 'f1': 0.5396037747148213, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSo someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSlaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " for want of better measure of intelligence " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said They're just prioritizing their mental resources. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7061909758656874, 'agreement': 0.592, 'direct_attack': 0.19130434782608696, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19791666666666666, 'partial': 0.17886178861788618}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7852975495915986, 'agreement': 0.275092936802974, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.20754716981132076}, 'f1': {'support': 0.743646408839779, 'agreement': 0.3756345177664975, 'direct_attack': 0.17600000000000002, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22822822822822822, 'partial': 0.19213973799126635}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5497347480106101, 'recall': 0.5497347480106101, 'f1': 0.5497347480106101, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.37325475579526546, 'recall': 0.3400808330536294, 'f1': 0.3431297785651542, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5551361756411881, 'recall': 0.5497347480106101, 'f1': 0.5402239058767458, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPlus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidyou take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7064989517819706, 'agreement': 0.592, 'direct_attack': 0.19130434782608696, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19895287958115182, 'partial': 0.17886178861788618}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7864644107351225, 'agreement': 0.275092936802974, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.20754716981132076}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7443401435670899, 'agreement': 0.3756345177664975, 'direct_attack': 0.17600000000000002, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2289156626506024, 'partial': 0.19213973799126635}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5503978779840849, 'recall': 0.5503978779840849, 'f1': 0.5503978779840849, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3735235935614191, 'recall': 0.3403142052823342, 'f1': 0.3434060123950912, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.555408086371425, 'recall': 0.5503978779840849, 'f1': 0.5406824330086161, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPeople seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't make Poker a bad game by design<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saideven though it can be unfun in some scenarios
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA person doing that is probably an asshole, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7064989517819706, 'agreement': 0.592, 'direct_attack': 0.18803418803418803, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19791666666666666, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7864644107351225, 'agreement': 0.275092936802974, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.18867924528301888}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7443401435670899, 'agreement': 0.3756345177664975, 'direct_attack': 0.1746031746031746, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22822822822822822, 'partial': 0.17699115044247787}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5490716180371353, 'recall': 0.5490716180371353, 'f1': 0.5490716180371353, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3702232946298984, 'recall': 0.3365406203766738, 'f1': 0.33995944292149366, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5541612292628851, 'recall': 0.5490716180371353, 'f1': 0.5394282884712833, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said They're just prioritizing their mental resources. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said * No * theorem is " proof "! 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I see what you're getting at. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidFeels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou hate animals and you want to see them killed. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSelf awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPurchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthey certainly aren't hard to make<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd they certainly have been made throughout history. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe only issue with that is it's very subjective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'l begin by saying it has never happened to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7064989517819706, 'agreement': 0.5873015873015873, 'direct_attack': 0.18803418803418803, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19791666666666666, 'partial': 0.16806722689075632}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7864644107351225, 'agreement': 0.275092936802974, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.18867924528301888}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7443401435670899, 'agreement': 0.37468354430379747, 'direct_attack': 0.1746031746031746, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22822822822822822, 'partial': 0.17777777777777778}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5490716180371353, 'recall': 0.5490716180371353, 'f1': 0.5490716180371353, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3695637241350338, 'recall': 0.3365406203766738, 'f1': 0.3399265736960136, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5534215650506044, 'recall': 0.5490716180371353, 'f1': 0.5393139453917578, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no afterlife
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChickens simply aren't. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnce monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAt what point do your rules against networking kick in? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidJust as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The best branch for that would be the Navy. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidour supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidis a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAre there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPlus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7042842215256009, 'agreement': 0.5806451612903226, 'direct_attack': 0.18803418803418803, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19791666666666666, 'partial': 0.1694915254237288}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7864644107351225, 'agreement': 0.26765799256505574, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.18867924528301888}, 'f1': {'support': 0.743109151047409, 'agreement': 0.366412213740458, 'direct_attack': 0.1746031746031746, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22822822822822822, 'partial': 0.17857142857142858}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5477453580901857, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5477453580901857, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3680743525881014, 'recall': 0.3350536315290901, 'f1': 0.3381848392381397, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5510756586963311, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5371947003474755, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWithout these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThat is what life is like<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidReading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm not proposing we implement it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIn a perfect world, sure. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidJeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think that's still largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidGeography certainly has to be part of it
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWell the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thatands a good point
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSociety might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAs you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidVegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe cars singing " You're worthless. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidLet's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7045929018789144, 'agreement': 0.576, 'direct_attack': 0.18803418803418803, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19895287958115182, 'partial': 0.1623931623931624}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7876312718786465, 'agreement': 0.26765799256505574, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.1792452830188679}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7438016528925621, 'agreement': 0.365482233502538, 'direct_attack': 0.1746031746031746, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2289156626506024, 'partial': 0.17040358744394618}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5477453580901857, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5477453580901857, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3659946263774833, 'recall': 0.3334002113049648, 'f1': 0.33664126221856466, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5500204002184764, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5369125030605638, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor I will be dead and won't know what I did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWho an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGeography certainly has to be part of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPeople enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLet's call it X. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidpeople are different from you<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFor someone other hetero guy it might not be. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThink of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIs a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'l begin by saying it has never happened to me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7045929018789144, 'agreement': 0.5772357723577236, 'direct_attack': 0.1864406779661017, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19895287958115182, 'partial': 0.1694915254237288}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7876312718786465, 'agreement': 0.26394052044609667, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.18867924528301888}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7438016528925621, 'agreement': 0.3622448979591837, 'direct_attack': 0.17391304347826086, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2289156626506024, 'partial': 0.17857142857142858}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5477453580901857, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5477453580901857, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36734275144152406, 'recall': 0.3345435093340031, 'f1': 0.33748933711040746, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.550597141190808, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5368473705648659, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said 4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Fix the process, not the game. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFor example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This analogy falls short for me. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said A crime completely erased. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7045929018789144, 'agreement': 0.576, 'direct_attack': 0.1864406779661017, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19895287958115182, 'partial': 0.16379310344827586}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7876312718786465, 'agreement': 0.26765799256505574, 'direct_attack': 0.16296296296296298, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2695035460992908, 'partial': 0.1792452830188679}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7438016528925621, 'agreement': 0.365482233502538, 'direct_attack': 0.17391304347826086, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2289156626506024, 'partial': 0.17117117117117114}, 'support': {'support': 857, 'agreement': 269, 'direct_attack': 135, 'undercutter_attack': 141, 'partial': 106}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5477453580901857, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5477453580901857, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36595591257488874, 'recall': 0.3334002113049648, 'f1': 0.33665675273902684, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5499761494841597, 'recall': 0.5477453580901857, 'f1': 0.5369046755892259, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPlayers who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThings about e-celebrities will start as rumors
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidPerhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHe can't test enough units on his own. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')


		-------------RUN 3-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI see this as a major flaw in democracy. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ). 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.0, 'agreement': 0.023809523809523808, 'direct_attack': 0.16326530612244897, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0827250608272506, 'partial': 0.0783132530120482}, 'recall': {'support': 0.0, 'agreement': 0.004694835680751174, 'direct_attack': 0.05194805194805195, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19101123595505617, 'partial': 0.7982456140350878}, 'f1': {'support': 0.0, 'agreement': 0.00784313725490196, 'direct_attack': 0.07881773399014778, 'undercutter_attack': 0.11544991511035654, 'partial': 0.1426332288401254}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.08052884615384616, 'recall': 0.08052884615384616, 'f1': 0.08052884615384616, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.06962262875425432, 'recall': 0.20917994752378943, 'f1': 0.06894880303910633, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.032372029678431384, 'recall': 0.08052884615384616, 'f1': 0.03041994726393908, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConsider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Patriotism is really just this belief. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's wonderful because I can let it all out <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm not proposing we implement it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLess intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7164179104477612, 'agreement': 0.45023696682464454, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.11741682974559686}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6679920477137177, 'agreement': 0.4481132075471698, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0056179775280898875, 'partial': 0.5263157894736842}, 'f1': {'support': 0.691358024691358, 'agreement': 0.44917257683215134, 'direct_attack': 0.0, 'undercutter_attack': 0.010989010989010988, 'partial': 0.192}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 212, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.49759615384615385, 'recall': 0.49759615384615385, 'f1': 0.49759615384615385, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.30681434140360053, 'recall': 0.32960780445253224, 'f1': 0.268703922502504, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5252717388631433, 'recall': 0.49759615384615385, 'f1': 0.489528126853345, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's not. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhy did they stay so long anyway? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ]
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat " 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidAs for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidif you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhen I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm showing some of what I truly believe. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's worth it dammit! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7032551097653293, 'agreement': 0.4672489082969432, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3108108108108108, 'partial': 0.125}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9234592445328031, 'agreement': 0.5047169811320755, 'direct_attack': 0.025974025974025976, 'undercutter_attack': 0.12921348314606743, 'partial': 0.008771929824561403}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7984529437043404, 'agreement': 0.4852607709750567, 'direct_attack': 0.043010752688172046, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18253968253968253, 'partial': 0.01639344262295082}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 212, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6394230769230769, 'recall': 0.6394230769230769, 'f1': 0.6394230769230769, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3462629657746167, 'recall': 0.3184271329219067, 'f1': 0.3051315185060405, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5380743589586524, 'recall': 0.6394230769230769, 'f1': 0.5691727864653466, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987.  [NEWLINE] The reason it is doesn't have attention now is because it didn't get attention back in the day.  [NEWLINE] The movie was not widely released in theaters because they never found a distributor for it.  [NEWLINE] So most of us who saw it did so in comparatively limited TV showings, or picked up a VHS tape.  [NEWLINE] It wasn't a made for TV movie, but that's what ended up happening to it.  [NEWLINE] It has massively outsized footprint for how easy it is to find and view.  [NEWLINE] Those who worked on it went on to do great things, and those who stumbled across it remember it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, in conclusion,  The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly,  but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Holy Crap I never knew it only went straight to VHS. [NEWLINE] That does explain a lot which kinda makes me sad it never got the loving from a massive portion of people like Iron Giant. [NEWLINE] Maybe a rerelease on Netflix will reignite the fire of the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] btw Um you get a delta for proving me wrong and that the movie was loved by the people but had very little in terms of distribution [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDoesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidonly in a very narrow sense<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidin the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, Congregationalists and Universaliists. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think this isn't ALWAYS true. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHowever this isn't about being just a bit conservative. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWell, real estate could certainly be one. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course not
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidC and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidassuming they all die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEither way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7506631299734748, 'agreement': 0.5245901639344263, 'direct_attack': 0.23204419889502761, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26174496644295303, 'partial': 0.35}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8439363817097415, 'agreement': 0.4528301886792453, 'direct_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21910112359550563, 'partial': 0.06140350877192982}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7945718296677585, 'agreement': 0.48607594936708864, 'direct_attack': 0.2507462686567164, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23853211009174313, 'partial': 0.1044776119402985}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 212, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6207932692307693, 'recall': 0.6207932692307693, 'f1': 0.6207932692307693, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.42380849184917635, 'recall': 0.36999969509673897, 'f1': 0.3748807539447211, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5941139628389988, 'recall': 0.6207932692307693, 'f1': 0.5981799583186578, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMost people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ). 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIts debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ) 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFor one thing, I can't swim. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou can create your own meaning. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMay as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7513134851138353, 'agreement': 0.4936708860759494, 'direct_attack': 0.32098765432098764, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2620320855614973, 'partial': 0.35294117647058826}, 'recall': {'support': 0.852882703777336, 'agreement': 0.5492957746478874, 'direct_attack': 0.16883116883116883, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2752808988764045, 'partial': 0.05309734513274336}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7988826815642458, 'agreement': 0.52, 'direct_attack': 0.22127659574468087, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2684931506849315, 'partial': 0.0923076923076923}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 113}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6346153846153846, 'recall': 0.6346153846153846, 'f1': 0.6346153846153846, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.43618905750857156, 'recall': 0.379877578253108, 'f1': 0.3801920240603101, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5991162426053189, 'recall': 0.6346153846153846, 'f1': 0.6050090886123793, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI cant do the things the average person can
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidJoseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnyone * can * run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou might not get very far
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHe's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou so make a good point about the sexual energy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7278911564625851, 'agreement': 0.46296296296296297, 'direct_attack': 0.3469387755102041, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2345679012345679, 'partial': 0.21311475409836064}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8517412935323383, 'agreement': 0.4694835680751174, 'direct_attack': 0.11038961038961038, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21348314606741572, 'partial': 0.11403508771929824}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7849610270518111, 'agreement': 0.46620046620046623, 'direct_attack': 0.16748768472906406, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22352941176470584, 'partial': 0.14857142857142858}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6153846153846154, 'recall': 0.6153846153846154, 'f1': 0.6153846153846154, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3970951100537361, 'recall': 0.351826541156756, 'f1': 0.35815000366349514, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5706841725790546, 'recall': 0.6153846153846154, 'f1': 0.583356378057275, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidno one can buy that doll
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNo ideal system is really going to be inefficient
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI certainly value our free speech
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPurchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAnd when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidinstead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHire an expensive private tutor instead. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7190742218675179, 'agreement': 0.5769230769230769, 'direct_attack': 0.25925925925925924, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25547445255474455, 'partial': 0.23333333333333334}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8965174129353234, 'agreement': 0.352112676056338, 'direct_attack': 0.09090909090909091, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19662921348314608, 'partial': 0.18421052631578946}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7980513728963685, 'agreement': 0.43731778425655976, 'direct_attack': 0.13461538461538464, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22222222222222224, 'partial': 0.20588235294117646}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6286057692307693, 'recall': 0.6286057692307693, 'f1': 0.6286057692307693, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4088128687875864, 'recall': 0.34407578393993754, 'f1': 0.35961782338634235, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5754534776695561, 'recall': 0.6286057692307693, 'f1': 0.5883096339117286, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnother thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTelling my government to send help is easier said than done. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt is comparable to that, too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBusinesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saiddo not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHe can't test enough units on his own. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.735269000853971, 'agreement': 0.4563106796116505, 'direct_attack': 0.28, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22905027932960895, 'partial': 0.29310344827586204}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8567164179104477, 'agreement': 0.4413145539906103, 'direct_attack': 0.09090909090909091, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2303370786516854, 'partial': 0.14912280701754385}, 'f1': {'support': 0.791360294117647, 'agreement': 0.44868735083532224, 'direct_attack': 0.13725490196078433, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22969187675070027, 'partial': 0.19767441860465115}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6171875, 'recall': 0.6171875, 'f1': 0.6171875, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.39874668161421856, 'recall': 0.35367998969587566, 'f1': 0.36093376845382097, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.572983331394015, 'recall': 0.6171875, 'f1': 0.5862048040869439, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they are trying to get americans to vote for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMost people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's really not that difficult with a little common sense! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt depends on the person. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't make Poker a bad game by design<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saideven though it can be unfun in some scenarios
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7435233160621761, 'agreement': 0.489247311827957, 'direct_attack': 0.3111111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.270935960591133, 'partial': 0.2638888888888889}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8558648111332008, 'agreement': 0.4272300469483568, 'direct_attack': 0.09090909090909091, 'undercutter_attack': 0.3107344632768362, 'partial': 0.16666666666666666}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7957486136783734, 'agreement': 0.45614035087719307, 'direct_attack': 0.1407035175879397, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2894736842105263, 'partial': 0.2043010752688172}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 177, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.625, 'recall': 0.625, 'f1': 0.625, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4157413176962533, 'recall': 0.37028101578683026, 'f1': 0.37727344832456994, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5878270690186173, 'recall': 0.625, 'f1': 0.5972815543820532, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thatands a good point
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidvery few routines are whole body in 1 day
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is almost just a semantic argument. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe perception of the value of human life goes to zero
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen he's angry and yelling at you? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWho an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidReading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Because it is erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIn this sense, it is not done for attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7262295081967213, 'agreement': 0.4972067039106145, 'direct_attack': 0.2876712328767123, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23622047244094488, 'partial': 0.26153846153846155}, 'recall': {'support': 0.881592039800995, 'agreement': 0.41784037558685444, 'direct_attack': 0.13636363636363635, 'undercutter_attack': 0.16853932584269662, 'partial': 0.14912280701754385}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7964044943820224, 'agreement': 0.4540816326530612, 'direct_attack': 0.18502202643171806, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19672131147540983, 'partial': 0.1899441340782123}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6268028846153846, 'recall': 0.6268028846153846, 'f1': 0.6268028846153846, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40177327579269095, 'recall': 0.35069163692234523, 'f1': 0.36443471980408476, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5720731263482887, 'recall': 0.6268028846153846, 'f1': 0.5903060825763572, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ) 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Nice exercise
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople have different goals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidothers think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidOne thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDecisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Nope. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSociety might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm not proposing we implement it
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat about terminally ill adults? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey wont experience long term consequences. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI do see a distinction between a pet and livestock<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7239413680781759, 'agreement': 0.4972067039106145, 'direct_attack': 0.2916666666666667, 'undercutter_attack': 0.224, 'partial': 0.26666666666666666}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8845771144278607, 'agreement': 0.41784037558685444, 'direct_attack': 0.13636363636363635, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.14035087719298245}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7962382445141065, 'agreement': 0.4540816326530612, 'direct_attack': 0.18584070796460175, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1848184818481848, 'partial': 0.1839080459770115}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6268028846153846, 'recall': 0.6268028846153846, 'f1': 0.6268028846153846, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40069628106442473, 'recall': 0.3472870748715701, 'f1': 0.3609774225913932, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5701050297585302, 'recall': 0.6268028846153846, 'f1': 0.5885946511590648, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat are the status goods of post-scarcity society? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Businesses are and should be designed to be effective. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAny company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsociety upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7231270358306189, 'agreement': 0.49444444444444446, 'direct_attack': 0.2916666666666667, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22580645161290322, 'partial': 0.26666666666666666}, 'recall': {'support': 0.882703777335984, 'agreement': 0.41784037558685444, 'direct_attack': 0.13636363636363635, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15819209039548024, 'partial': 0.14035087719298245}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7949865711727842, 'agreement': 0.45292620865139943, 'direct_attack': 0.18584070796460175, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18604651162790697, 'partial': 0.1839080459770115}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 177, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6262019230769231, 'recall': 0.6262019230769231, 'f1': 0.6262019230769231, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40034225304425997, 'recall': 0.34709015137498755, 'f1': 0.3607416090787408, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5697517267514542, 'recall': 0.6262019230769231, 'f1': 0.5881880960749017, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ]
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAgriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line]<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmost prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore more likely to survive and advance the human race. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7207792207792207, 'agreement': 0.4972067039106145, 'direct_attack': 0.29577464788732394, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22764227642276422, 'partial': 0.2542372881355932}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8835820895522388, 'agreement': 0.41784037558685444, 'direct_attack': 0.13636363636363635, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7939204291461779, 'agreement': 0.4540816326530612, 'direct_attack': 0.18666666666666668, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18604651162790697, 'partial': 0.17341040462427745}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6256009615384616, 'recall': 0.6256009615384616, 'f1': 0.6256009615384616, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3991280274271033, 'recall': 0.3453336839315335, 'f1': 0.35882512894361807, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5681134715393241, 'recall': 0.6256009615384616, 'f1': 0.5866833839607046, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe boss owns the factory where the workers work
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSomething in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents? 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAnd then their descendants will die, on and on and on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSince we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhen you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI have a Masters degree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saiddegrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou make some good points. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOn boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right, <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOnce some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7235772357723578, 'agreement': 0.4972375690607735, 'direct_attack': 0.3013698630136986, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22580645161290322, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8846918489065606, 'agreement': 0.4225352112676056, 'direct_attack': 0.1437908496732026, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7960644007155635, 'agreement': 0.4568527918781726, 'direct_attack': 0.19469026548672566, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18543046357615894, 'partial': 0.17647058823529407}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 153, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6280048076923077, 'recall': 0.6280048076923077, 'f1': 0.6280048076923077, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40316965246337527, 'recall': 0.3479800456004613, 'f1': 0.361901701978383, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5713155968214205, 'recall': 0.6280048076923077, 'f1': 0.5895807163369929, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut the money doesn't just disappear. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey'd have given him a big hooked nose
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIdeally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidExercise regimens depend entirely on your goals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCardio
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidcertain Native American practices still have vestiges of this
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut this view is separate from the objective success of the series. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I see what you're getting at. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said, <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, or 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidguides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.719838056680162, 'agreement': 0.5056179775280899, 'direct_attack': 0.2857142857142857, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21774193548387097, 'partial': 0.2631578947368421}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8845771144278607, 'agreement': 0.4225352112676056, 'direct_attack': 0.12987012987012986, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15168539325842698, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.79375, 'agreement': 0.46035805626598464, 'direct_attack': 0.17857142857142855, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17880794701986755, 'partial': 0.17543859649122803}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6256009615384616, 'recall': 0.6256009615384616, 'f1': 0.6256009615384616, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.39841403002865017, 'recall': 0.34404935923848884, 'f1': 0.3573852056697017, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5672427528204176, 'recall': 0.6256009615384616, 'f1': 0.5859992972080476, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidGoing down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you're ambivalent the risk is too great. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said ok<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Not sure where you got your idea of communism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's also the most beneficial for older people<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere's an entire article I read about this once
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe same goes for when something is priced above its market value
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think networking is one of them, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmath was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou don't put in much effort
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSeparating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidby it's very nature implies you cannot sum them
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap, 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7206477732793523, 'agreement': 0.5056179775280899, 'direct_attack': 0.3055555555555556, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21951219512195122, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8846918489065606, 'agreement': 0.42452830188679247, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15168539325842698, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7942882641677822, 'agreement': 0.46153846153846156, 'direct_attack': 0.1946902654867257, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1794019933554817, 'partial': 0.17647058823529407}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 212, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6274038461538461, 'recall': 0.6274038461538461, 'f1': 0.6274038461538461, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40383812886841836, 'recall': 0.3470683268554688, 'f1': 0.3612779145567491, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5702086007980534, 'recall': 0.6274038461538461, 'f1': 0.5883014725721141, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDoesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI get your point<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidif you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7210056772100568, 'agreement': 0.5055555555555555, 'direct_attack': 0.3108108108108108, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22131147540983606, 'partial': 0.2727272727272727}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8845771144278607, 'agreement': 0.4272300469483568, 'direct_attack': 0.14935064935064934, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15168539325842698, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7944593386952636, 'agreement': 0.4631043256997456, 'direct_attack': 0.2017543859649123, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18000000000000002, 'partial': 0.17751479289940827}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6280048076923077, 'recall': 0.6280048076923077, 'f1': 0.6280048076923077, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40628215834270637, 'recall': 0.34888443027074295, 'f1': 0.36336656865186595, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5713000333582724, 'recall': 0.6280048076923077, 'f1': 0.5891945424230257, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt doesnt make me stupid<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidim capable of the same things just in a different way
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou are forgetting the need to make money also wains
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidConsider a novel. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right, <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would love a better measure of intelligence. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7207792207792207, 'agreement': 0.5055555555555555, 'direct_attack': 0.3013698630136986, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21951219512195122, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8835820895522388, 'agreement': 0.4272300469483568, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15168539325842698, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7939204291461779, 'agreement': 0.4631043256997456, 'direct_attack': 0.19383259911894274, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1794019933554817, 'partial': 0.17647058823529407}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6268028846153846, 'recall': 0.6268028846153846, 'f1': 0.6268028846153846, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40301479546551383, 'recall': 0.3473867239969173, 'f1': 0.3613459871111284, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.56976339791946, 'recall': 0.6268028846153846, 'f1': 0.588000405532675, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSecond, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey break the fourth wall, if you will. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbut thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWith absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is not a good reason to use anything. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWho an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ) and to be quicker ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated! 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7201946472019465, 'agreement': 0.5027932960893855, 'direct_attack': 0.3055555555555556, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21951219512195122, 'partial': 0.2631578947368421}, 'recall': {'support': 0.882703777335984, 'agreement': 0.4225352112676056, 'direct_attack': 0.1437908496732026, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15168539325842698, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7932112550245645, 'agreement': 0.45918367346938777, 'direct_attack': 0.19555555555555554, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1794019933554817, 'partial': 0.17543859649122803}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 153, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6262019230769231, 'recall': 0.6262019230769231, 'f1': 0.6262019230769231, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4022427177411362, 'recall': 0.34645883578072806, 'f1': 0.3605582147792435, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5693713689206157, 'recall': 0.6262019230769231, 'f1': 0.5875181489308697, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBut most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you're ambivalent the risk is too great. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think you're right
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo ideal system is really going to be inefficient<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money! 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI completely disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat's the point? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7207792207792207, 'agreement': 0.5055555555555555, 'direct_attack': 0.3055555555555556, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21951219512195122, 'partial': 0.2631578947368421}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8835820895522388, 'agreement': 0.4272300469483568, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15168539325842698, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7939204291461779, 'agreement': 0.4631043256997456, 'direct_attack': 0.1946902654867257, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1794019933554817, 'partial': 0.17543859649122803}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6268028846153846, 'recall': 0.6268028846153846, 'f1': 0.6268028846153846, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40291208434982506, 'recall': 0.3473867239969173, 'f1': 0.3613111220358718, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5698288320334813, 'recall': 0.6268028846153846, 'f1': 0.5880090795481888, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said - What is the state of the school? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo they should not. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWar for oil sustains our economy. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidall of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That was terrific. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBut the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7213647441104792, 'agreement': 0.5081967213114754, 'direct_attack': 0.3142857142857143, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22764227642276422, 'partial': 0.2631578947368421}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8835820895522388, 'agreement': 0.43661971830985913, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7942754919499105, 'agreement': 0.46969696969696967, 'direct_attack': 0.19642857142857142, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18604651162790697, 'partial': 0.17543859649122803}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6286057692307693, 'recall': 0.6286057692307693, 'f1': 0.6286057692307693, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40692947017345504, 'recall': 0.35038825377483573, 'f1': 0.36437722823891733, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5721981939144398, 'recall': 0.6286057692307693, 'f1': 0.5899390643178377, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis just won't help the situation in any way. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey do happen
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter you see the gun? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThese types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saiddon't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI still believe it is a good idea
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ), 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7220421393841167, 'agreement': 0.5108695652173914, 'direct_attack': 0.32857142857142857, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23529411764705882, 'partial': 0.2631578947368421}, 'recall': {'support': 0.885685884691849, 'agreement': 0.4413145539906103, 'direct_attack': 0.14935064935064934, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15819209039548024, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7955357142857143, 'agreement': 0.47355163727959704, 'direct_attack': 0.20535714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1891891891891892, 'partial': 0.17543859649122803}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 177, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6316105769230769, 'recall': 0.6316105769230769, 'f1': 0.6316105769230769, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.41198702911136753, 'recall': 0.353224425159402, 'f1': 0.3678144560205743, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5753826132423409, 'recall': 0.6316105769230769, 'f1': 0.5927205010808108, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's clearly an oligarchy
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou may think you aren't guilty of this<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidby virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Patriotism is really just this belief. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt wouldn't be a fine
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey couldn't just survive together
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel everyone is passionate about something<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwhether it be math or psychology or medicine
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhy would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't disagree<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidStalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidour supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidis an indication that there is a problem with the relationship
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou didn't exist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7214574898785425, 'agreement': 0.5161290322580645, 'direct_attack': 0.32857142857142857, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23076923076923078, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.885685884691849, 'agreement': 0.4507042253521127, 'direct_attack': 0.14935064935064934, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15254237288135594, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7951807228915664, 'agreement': 0.48120300751879697, 'direct_attack': 0.20535714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18367346938775514, 'partial': 0.17647058823529407}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 177, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6322115384615384, 'recall': 0.6322115384615384, 'f1': 0.6322115384615384, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4129568648668819, 'recall': 0.3539724159288776, 'f1': 0.3683769861781111, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5755430209258712, 'recall': 0.6322115384615384, 'f1': 0.5929692902469205, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidlike how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYeah, you're right. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSlaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidcertainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said you aren't looking to have your view changed<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidRwanda wasn't that long ago either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI did do the completionist run! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwe don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey know exactly what the problems are
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7212317666126418, 'agreement': 0.5161290322580645, 'direct_attack': 0.32857142857142857, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23728813559322035, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8855721393034826, 'agreement': 0.4507042253521127, 'direct_attack': 0.14935064935064934, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7949977668602054, 'agreement': 0.48120300751879697, 'direct_attack': 0.20535714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1891891891891892, 'partial': 0.17647058823529407}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6322115384615384, 'recall': 0.6322115384615384, 'f1': 0.6322115384615384, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4142155011784996, 'recall': 0.3549018664322365, 'f1': 0.3694435389321257, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5758091416694593, 'recall': 0.6322115384615384, 'f1': 0.5930813215327579, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said That is probably one of the biggest reasons. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidfair enough
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIm really good at doing certain things. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSimply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConsider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIgnorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that phenomenon has been around forever 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course not
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsociety upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7212317666126418, 'agreement': 0.5161290322580645, 'direct_attack': 0.32857142857142857, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23728813559322035, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8855721393034826, 'agreement': 0.4507042253521127, 'direct_attack': 0.14935064935064934, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7949977668602054, 'agreement': 0.48120300751879697, 'direct_attack': 0.20535714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1891891891891892, 'partial': 0.17647058823529407}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6322115384615384, 'recall': 0.6322115384615384, 'f1': 0.6322115384615384, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4142155011784996, 'recall': 0.3549018664322365, 'f1': 0.3694435389321257, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5758091416694593, 'recall': 0.6322115384615384, 'f1': 0.5930813215327579, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This analogy falls short for me. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think is flawed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDecisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidStill, this can be ameliorated by high-rises. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo did they. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEver heard of the Reign of Terror? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSavescumming for optimal results breaks most games<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the number of them isn't the question - the severity is. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will care about how people respond to them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAt this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7216828478964401, 'agreement': 0.5163043478260869, 'direct_attack': 0.32857142857142857, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23728813559322035, 'partial': 0.26785714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8866799204771372, 'agreement': 0.4481132075471698, 'direct_attack': 0.14935064935064934, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.13157894736842105}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7957181088314005, 'agreement': 0.4797979797979798, 'direct_attack': 0.20535714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1891891891891892, 'partial': 0.17647058823529407}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 212, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6328125, 'recall': 0.6328125, 'f1': 0.6328125, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.41434078054886375, 'recall': 0.35460521910597886, 'f1': 0.3693066017822013, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5762274453991927, 'recall': 0.6328125, 'f1': 0.5935263893846513, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI get seasick lol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987.  [NEWLINE] The reason it is doesn't have attention now is because it didn't get attention back in the day.  [NEWLINE] The movie was not widely released in theaters because they never found a distributor for it.  [NEWLINE] So most of us who saw it did so in comparatively limited TV showings, or picked up a VHS tape.  [NEWLINE] It wasn't a made for TV movie, but that's what ended up happening to it.  [NEWLINE] It has massively outsized footprint for how easy it is to find and view.  [NEWLINE] Those who worked on it went on to do great things, and those who stumbled across it remember it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, in conclusion,  The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly,  but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Holy Crap I never knew it only went straight to VHS. [NEWLINE] That does explain a lot which kinda makes me sad it never got the loving from a massive portion of people like Iron Giant. [NEWLINE] Maybe a rerelease on Netflix will reignite the fire of the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] btw Um you get a delta for proving me wrong and that the movie was loved by the people but had very little in terms of distribution [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidonly in a very narrow sense<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidshould be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidothers would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ). 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7210994341147938, 'agreement': 0.510752688172043, 'direct_attack': 0.3333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23931623931623933, 'partial': 0.2545454545454545}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8866799204771372, 'agreement': 0.4481132075471698, 'direct_attack': 0.14935064935064934, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.12280701754385964}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7953633526526972, 'agreement': 0.4773869346733668, 'direct_attack': 0.20627802690582958, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18983050847457628, 'partial': 0.16568047337278108}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 212, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6322115384615384, 'recall': 0.6322115384615384, 'f1': 0.6322115384615384, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.41180942989637276, 'recall': 0.3528508331410666, 'f1': 0.3669078592158502, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5749131047847125, 'recall': 0.6322115384615384, 'f1': 0.5924193410672095, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMoney circulates multiple times in a system
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I understand and support discounts for military personnel. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said it obviously does<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAt the best
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI return to it permanently
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI do see a distinction between a pet and livestock
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidrushing/missing the damn point of the game
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think networking is one of them, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSimply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidchickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Fix the process, not the game. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSavescumming for optimal results breaks most games<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSix months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7216828478964401, 'agreement': 0.5135135135135135, 'direct_attack': 0.3142857142857143, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23333333333333334, 'partial': 0.2641509433962264}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8875621890547264, 'agreement': 0.4460093896713615, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15730337078651685, 'partial': 0.12280701754385964}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7960731816153502, 'agreement': 0.4773869346733668, 'direct_attack': 0.19642857142857142, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18791946308724833, 'partial': 0.16766467065868262}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6316105769230769, 'recall': 0.6316105769230769, 'f1': 0.6316105769230769, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4093932704850456, 'recall': 0.3513078219827214, 'f1': 0.36509456429264386, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5737477051651465, 'recall': 0.6316105769230769, 'f1': 0.5916769239744436, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidI was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSecond, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmy point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is true
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the number of them isn't the question - the severity is. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTo me, it is as if my life had never happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhen I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said No only am I accepting their compliment
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo, what would rich people spend their money on? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.721324717285945, 'agreement': 0.5191256830601093, 'direct_attack': 0.3142857142857143, 'undercutter_attack': 0.225, 'partial': 0.2641509433962264}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8885572139303483, 'agreement': 0.4460093896713615, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15168539325842698, 'partial': 0.12280701754385964}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7962550156041016, 'agreement': 0.47979797979797983, 'direct_attack': 0.19642857142857142, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18120805369127518, 'partial': 0.16766467065868262}, 'support': {'support': 1005, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 154, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6316105769230769, 'recall': 0.6316105769230769, 'f1': 0.6316105769230769, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.408777411605599, 'recall': 0.35038323145222783, 'f1': 0.36427085823612215, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5733583647303774, 'recall': 0.6316105769230769, 'f1': 0.5913774437447288, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIm really good at doing certain things. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think that builds my initial point. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidParents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince the majority of farms are large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNot getting the money is not an option<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for money
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7221324717285945, 'agreement': 0.5135135135135135, 'direct_attack': 0.30434782608695654, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2231404958677686, 'partial': 0.27450980392156865}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8886679920477137, 'agreement': 0.4460093896713615, 'direct_attack': 0.13725490196078433, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15168539325842698, 'partial': 0.12280701754385964}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7967914438502675, 'agreement': 0.4773869346733668, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1806020066889632, 'partial': 0.1696969696969697}, 'support': {'support': 1006, 'agreement': 213, 'direct_attack': 153, 'undercutter_attack': 178, 'partial': 114}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6316105769230769, 'recall': 0.6316105769230769, 'f1': 0.6316105769230769, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.40752882222368036, 'recall': 0.3492849388964292, 'f1': 0.3627333088197513, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5729699448558716, 'recall': 0.6316105769230769, 'f1': 0.5911623601447308, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat's exactly what it's turning into<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it obviously does
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt wouldn't be a fine<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsince it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line]<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmost poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')


		-------------RUN 4-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPerhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWeights<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBest in terms of time investment? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they do not have a belief that they are better. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMaking friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.0, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.10150674068199841, 'undercutter_attack': 0.14102564102564102, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.0, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.8767123287671232, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1658291457286432, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.0, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.18194740582800284, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15242494226327943, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.10762032085561497, 'recall': 0.10762032085561497, 'f1': 0.10762032085561497, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.04850647634152789, 'recall': 0.2085082948991533, 'f1': 0.06687446961825645, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.028665833358071074, 'recall': 0.10762032085561497, 'f1': 0.038032676979465926, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidno one can buy that doll
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou're already taking a good bit time to play the game
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMy brain is wired differently. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said[47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course not
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat hurt like hell. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOr does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said to petition the government to make regulation changes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7579298831385642, 'agreement': 0.30708661417322836, 'direct_attack': 0.12696335078534032, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5072625698324023, 'agreement': 0.2422360248447205, 'direct_attack': 0.6643835616438356, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6077643908969211, 'agreement': 0.27083333333333337, 'direct_attack': 0.2131868131868132, 'undercutter_attack': 0.0, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.39438502673796794, 'recall': 0.39438502673796794, 'f1': 0.39438502673796794, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.23839596961942658, 'recall': 0.2827764312641917, 'f1': 0.21835690748341358, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4988802403112062, 'recall': 0.39438502673796794, 'f1': 0.41355519468227653, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidhasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonly a few extremist individuals try to advocate it
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThere was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCheck out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore more likely to survive and advance the human race. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSociety might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe're not dependent on our technology to survive. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou're carrying and you rear end a guy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor I will be dead and won't know what I did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Fix the process, not the game. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWell in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7430703624733476, 'agreement': 0.47058823529411764, 'direct_attack': 0.1493212669683258, 'undercutter_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7787709497206704, 'agreement': 0.09937888198757763, 'direct_attack': 0.4520547945205479, 'undercutter_attack': 0.005025125628140704, 'partial': 0.10526315789473684}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7605019094380796, 'agreement': 0.1641025641025641, 'direct_attack': 0.22448979591836735, 'undercutter_attack': 0.009708737864077669, 'partial': 0.11764705882352941}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5280748663101604, 'recall': 0.5280748663101604, 'f1': 0.5280748663101604, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3278340681852534, 'recall': 0.28809858195033466, 'f1': 0.2552900132293236, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5372385182945272, 'recall': 0.5280748663101604, 'f1': 0.5033113244618064, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt often doesn't work out so well that way. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's like playing poker with players who never bet
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would love a better measure of intelligence. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(21, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidShe is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI see this as a major flaw in democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNeither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidlow-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSimply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said How do the stats stack up in support of your view? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.731203007518797, 'agreement': 0.6547619047619048, 'direct_attack': 0.2564102564102564, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24714828897338403, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8692737430167597, 'agreement': 0.3416149068322981, 'direct_attack': 0.136986301369863, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32663316582914576, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7942827973455844, 'agreement': 0.4489795918367347, 'direct_attack': 0.17857142857142855, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2813852813852814, 'partial': 0.05882352941176471}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6156417112299465, 'recall': 0.6156417112299465, 'f1': 0.6156417112299465, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.46361897724715406, 'recall': 0.34121741288329754, 'f1': 0.3524085257101588, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5930321196870832, 'recall': 0.6156417112299465, 'f1': 0.5821017063978807, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEvery middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor I will be dead and won't know what I did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFor example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause I want to know what older, more mature people think
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI get seasick lol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey will die too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6803615447822514, 'agreement': 0.4444444444444444, 'direct_attack': 0.34782608695652173, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1864406779661017, 'partial': 0.11764705882352941}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9251396648044693, 'agreement': 0.32298136645962733, 'direct_attack': 0.1643835616438356, 'undercutter_attack': 0.05527638190954774, 'partial': 0.042105263157894736}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7840909090909091, 'agreement': 0.37410071942446044, 'direct_attack': 0.22325581395348837, 'undercutter_attack': 0.08527131782945736, 'partial': 0.06201550387596899}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6143048128342246, 'recall': 0.6143048128342246, 'f1': 0.6143048128342246, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35534396259456974, 'recall': 0.30197724759507494, 'f1': 0.30574685283485686, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5210828291008103, 'recall': 0.6143048128342246, 'f1': 0.5464220544232554, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtheir will always be a few bad apples
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Nope. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest... 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is very little skill involved in playing the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's either the extreme left, or the extreme right. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidrushing/missing the damn point of the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI regard that as speciesism. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saiddespite how much you love your dog
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidless useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPerhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7185461323392358, 'agreement': 0.4075829383886256, 'direct_attack': 0.24675324675324675, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2692307692307692, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8614525139664805, 'agreement': 0.5341614906832298, 'direct_attack': 0.13013698630136986, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17587939698492464, 'partial': 0.010526315789473684}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7835365853658537, 'agreement': 0.46236559139784944, 'direct_attack': 0.17040358744394618, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2127659574468085, 'partial': 0.019999999999999997}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6096256684491979, 'recall': 0.6096256684491979, 'f1': 0.6096256684491979, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36842261734237547, 'recall': 0.34243134074509574, 'f1': 0.3298143443308916, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5463385953389586, 'recall': 0.6096256684491979, 'f1': 0.5647228966685988, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhy is it tied to what the majority wants
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese groups are always extreme fringes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidpeople are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidcommunism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince the majority of farms are large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidour supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7234242709313264, 'agreement': 0.4437869822485207, 'direct_attack': 0.27450980392156865, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2604166666666667, 'partial': 0.2857142857142857}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8592178770949721, 'agreement': 0.4658385093167702, 'direct_attack': 0.0958904109589041, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25125628140703515, 'partial': 0.06315789473684211}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7854954034729316, 'agreement': 0.4545454545454546, 'direct_attack': 0.14213197969543145, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25575447570332477, 'partial': 0.10344827586206898}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6109625668449198, 'recall': 0.6109625668449198, 'f1': 0.6109625668449198, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3975704018964737, 'recall': 0.3470721947029047, 'f1': 0.34827511785584225, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5601327752724744, 'recall': 0.6109625668449198, 'f1': 0.5733116311480503, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ]
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  [NEWLINE] We're not dependent on our technology to survive.  [NEWLINE] There's lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  [NEWLINE] I don ; t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society ( maybe a bit at first )  but  once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society. [NEWLINE]  People are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You phrased it better than I did, but  you didn't actually disagree with me.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you for your participation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSociety might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI like them both for different reasons
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no afterlife
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidat the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA bolt to the brain sounds bad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7206290471785384, 'agreement': 0.38349514563106796, 'direct_attack': 0.35, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2792207792207792, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.870391061452514, 'agreement': 0.4906832298136646, 'direct_attack': 0.0958904109589041, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21608040201005024, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7884615384615383, 'agreement': 0.4305177111716621, 'direct_attack': 0.15053763440860213, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24362606232294615, 'partial': 0.05454545454545455}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6136363636363636, 'recall': 0.6136363636363636, 'f1': 0.6136363636363636, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3866689944060771, 'recall': 0.3409248103207108, 'f1': 0.3335376801820406, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5563974938077065, 'recall': 0.6136363636363636, 'f1': 0.5686018232817212, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said[organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said For most religions, it matters what you do
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; ) 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAmerica's innovation and education rankings would be lower
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhen I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhat about that makes someone feel good? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7131147540983607, 'agreement': 0.43312101910828027, 'direct_attack': 0.23300970873786409, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26666666666666666, 'partial': 0.1111111111111111}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8748603351955307, 'agreement': 0.422360248447205, 'direct_attack': 0.1643835616438356, 'undercutter_attack': 0.16080402010050251, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7857501254390367, 'agreement': 0.4276729559748428, 'direct_attack': 0.19277108433734938, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20062695924764892, 'partial': 0.03539823008849557}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.607620320855615, 'recall': 0.607620320855615, 'f1': 0.607620320855615, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3514046519444565, 'recall': 0.3286921593932043, 'f1': 0.32844387101747463, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5385105806767488, 'recall': 0.607620320855615, 'f1': 0.5638595476215439, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is no different from any other system
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhat would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou don't need millions of dollars<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI like them both for different reasons<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit no longer exists since you cannot experience it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidamericans are better because of the side of the line they are born on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that is useful for decision making in a political context
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7202602230483272, 'agreement': 0.4126984126984127, 'direct_attack': 0.28378378378378377, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8659217877094972, 'agreement': 0.484472049689441, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19597989949748743, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7864028411973618, 'agreement': 0.44571428571428573, 'direct_attack': 0.19090909090909086, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22807017543859648, 'partial': 0.03669724770642201}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6116310160427807, 'recall': 0.6116310160427807, 'f1': 0.6116310160427807, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3664653670229878, 'recall': 0.34225239698274584, 'f1': 0.3375587281931514, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5483649280409663, 'recall': 0.6116310160427807, 'f1': 0.5697429636288481, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOn boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said These bad apples need to be weeded out
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe DSM-IV defines delusion as : 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they are trying to get americans to vote for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said he doesn't you to shoot him either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthis slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said What you said is definitely true about patriots
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7166666666666667, 'agreement': 0.4083769633507853, 'direct_attack': 0.28, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26811594202898553, 'partial': 0.08333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.864804469273743, 'agreement': 0.484472049689441, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18592964824120603, 'partial': 0.010526315789473684}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7837974683544303, 'agreement': 0.4431818181818182, 'direct_attack': 0.19004524886877824, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2195845697329377, 'partial': 0.018691588785046728}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.608957219251337, 'recall': 0.608957219251337, 'f1': 0.608957219251337, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3512985810759542, 'recall': 0.33791361988644397, 'f1': 0.3310601387846023, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5409873642356804, 'recall': 0.608957219251337, 'f1': 0.5655552430152162, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidi. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's not. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no afterlife
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your view sounds great
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou can create your own meaning. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI might be losing precious time by joining the military
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think you're right
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSlaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThat may be true. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I support these efforts when they're available. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7149446494464945, 'agreement': 0.41361256544502617, 'direct_attack': 0.28, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26865671641791045, 'partial': 0.08333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8659217877094972, 'agreement': 0.4906832298136646, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18090452261306533, 'partial': 0.010526315789473684}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7832238504295098, 'agreement': 0.44886363636363635, 'direct_attack': 0.19004524886877824, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21621621621621623, 'partial': 0.018691588785046728}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6096256684491979, 'recall': 0.6096256684491979, 'f1': 0.6096256684491979, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35210945292855284, 'recall': 0.3383742944728114, 'f1': 0.3314081081326375, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.540592538452602, 'recall': 0.6096256684491979, 'f1': 0.5653754852175167, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis is no different from any other system<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn communism, surplus value is also either created
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGlobal stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is no different from any other system
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince the majority of farms are large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said it obviously does<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMoney circulates multiple times in a system
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidDoesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt is comparable to that, too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI have always thought that that was a bad thing<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidDifferent branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe air force isn't right for me
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they die, they won't know either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7169287696577243, 'agreement': 0.40625, 'direct_attack': 0.27631578947368424, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2631578947368421, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8659217877094972, 'agreement': 0.484472049689441, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17587939698492464, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7844129554655871, 'agreement': 0.4419263456090652, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2108433734939759, 'partial': 0.03669724770642201}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.608957219251337, 'recall': 0.608957219251337, 'f1': 0.608957219251337, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36110191934507874, 'recall': 0.33823229648023323, 'f1': 0.33261382229284786, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5436761054350812, 'recall': 0.608957219251337, 'f1': 0.5656854467003963, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSomeone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Experience that, I beg you. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBeyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSexual attraction is not something that just shuts off
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's really the most important part
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidDifferent branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe air force isn't right for me
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTo me, it is as if my life had never happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBeing proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7173308619091752, 'agreement': 0.40414507772020725, 'direct_attack': 0.27631578947368424, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26119402985074625, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.864804469273743, 'agreement': 0.484472049689441, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17587939698492464, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.78419452887538, 'agreement': 0.44067796610169496, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21021021021021022, 'partial': 0.03669724770642201}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6082887700534759, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.6082887700534759, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36036858036219116, 'recall': 0.33800883279308247, 'f1': 0.33219382841657924, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5434288935137367, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.5653361951012043, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI have to ask<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You just want to make a statement. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Every thought stands of its own individual merits. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAt best
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidAs for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThere is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI do see a distinction between a pet and livestock<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidin the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat hurt like hell. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSay if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAccording to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7171903881700554, 'agreement': 0.4052631578947368, 'direct_attack': 0.27631578947368424, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2537313432835821, 'partial': 0.14285714285714285}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8670391061452514, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7850278199291856, 'agreement': 0.43874643874643876, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2042042042042042, 'partial': 0.03669724770642201}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6082887700534759, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.6082887700534759, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3590715643358403, 'recall': 0.33620849901691124, 'f1': 0.330772979955088, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5424724846131495, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.5648279226371431, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidgiven the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou are correct that this is false. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There are plenty of professions that do great things for society<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said What about teachers? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidelevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAnd then their descendants will die, on and on and on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think I still have a lot to research<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Air Force is a business
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnyone * can * run for office. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou might not get very far
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7171903881700554, 'agreement': 0.4052631578947368, 'direct_attack': 0.28, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2537313432835821, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8670391061452514, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7850278199291856, 'agreement': 0.43874643874643876, 'direct_attack': 0.19004524886877824, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2042042042042042, 'partial': 0.03636363636363636}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6082887700534759, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.6082887700534759, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35790364453634155, 'recall': 0.33620849901691124, 'f1': 0.3308774696224487, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5422272525490319, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.5648902833561641, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said that doesn't mean I should fear Christians. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEvery other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIntelligence is at least partially genetic
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMaybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI loved the extended edition
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause I want to know what older, more mature people think
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7166666666666667, 'agreement': 0.4031413612565445, 'direct_attack': 0.28, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2518518518518518, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.864804469273743, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7837974683544303, 'agreement': 0.4375, 'direct_attack': 0.19004524886877824, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20359281437125745, 'partial': 0.03636363636363636}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.606951871657754, 'recall': 0.606951871657754, 'f1': 0.606951871657754, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35699864262167924, 'recall': 0.33576157164260956, 'f1': 0.3302598335916205, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5414355688597295, 'recall': 0.606951871657754, 'f1': 0.5639387406594135, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's an ethical question
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt doesnt make me stupid<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn my mind, marriage is a commitment. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSavescumming for optimal results breaks most games
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, Congregationalists and Universaliists. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm not proposing we implement it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIn a perfect world, sure. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSince we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWithout the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChristianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidyou take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhile you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7164040778498609, 'agreement': 0.4052631578947368, 'direct_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2518518518518518, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8636871508379889, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7831813576494426, 'agreement': 0.43874643874643876, 'direct_attack': 0.18834080717488788, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20359281437125745, 'partial': 0.03636363636363636}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6062834224598931, 'recall': 0.6062834224598931, 'f1': 0.6062834224598931, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35591593873141114, 'recall': 0.33553810795545874, 'f1': 0.33004501086113264, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5407970488636665, 'recall': 0.6062834224598931, 'f1': 0.5635379445831465, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I wouldn't mind a smarter human race... 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that phenomenon has been around forever 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidhasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSaying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat about terminally ill adults? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7164040778498609, 'agreement': 0.4052631578947368, 'direct_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2518518518518518, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8636871508379889, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7831813576494426, 'agreement': 0.43874643874643876, 'direct_attack': 0.18834080717488788, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20359281437125745, 'partial': 0.03636363636363636}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6062834224598931, 'recall': 0.6062834224598931, 'f1': 0.6062834224598931, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35591593873141114, 'recall': 0.33553810795545874, 'f1': 0.33004501086113264, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5407970488636665, 'recall': 0.6062834224598931, 'f1': 0.5635379445831465, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said we're no more inherently correct than they were. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said * No * theorem is " proof "! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTheorems are explanations * of * facts
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " President Obama sucks! " etc
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNo ideal system is really going to be inefficient
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLater in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThey break the fourth wall, if you will. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidan obvious example would be asexual people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are many people who want close relationships without romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow can you even compare them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Fix the process, not the game. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause they are trying to get americans to vote for them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7164040778498609, 'agreement': 0.4052631578947368, 'direct_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2518518518518518, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8636871508379889, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7831813576494426, 'agreement': 0.43874643874643876, 'direct_attack': 0.18834080717488788, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20359281437125745, 'partial': 0.03636363636363636}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6062834224598931, 'recall': 0.6062834224598931, 'f1': 0.6062834224598931, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35591593873141114, 'recall': 0.33553810795545874, 'f1': 0.33004501086113264, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5407970488636665, 'recall': 0.6062834224598931, 'f1': 0.5635379445831465, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsuch as... talking about the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUltimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAfter the horrors of World War 2
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidShe's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor I will be dead and won't know what I did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChristianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe only issue with that is it's very subjective. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7153419593345656, 'agreement': 0.4117647058823529, 'direct_attack': 0.27631578947368424, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.864804469273743, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7830045523520486, 'agreement': 0.4425287356321839, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20298507462686569, 'partial': 0.03636363636363636}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.606951871657754, 'recall': 0.606951871657754, 'f1': 0.606951871657754, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3573511576047872, 'recall': 0.33576157164260956, 'f1': 0.3308142376327848, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5409652026613099, 'recall': 0.606951871657754, 'f1': 0.5638411749457076, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidis a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAre there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI take some issue with assumption #1. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The facts definitively disprove SVT! 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnother thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTelling my government to send help is easier said than done. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIdeally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think I still have a lot to research<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Navy is a " denim and leather " bar
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think that's still largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] For one thing, I can't swim.  [NEWLINE] I can ( for the most part ) bob in place well enough to keep myself from drowning, but when I add any type of movement I end up with lungs full of water.  [NEWLINE] It's not from lack of trying either.  [NEWLINE] I've had lots of swimming lessons, and I just can't catch on.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also,  you are dismissing " lack of availability " as a reason pretty easily.  [NEWLINE]  That is probably one of the biggest reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] fair enough, though  I still feel that for those who are able swimming is the best form of exercise. [NEWLINE] i'll add physical inability to do so to the OP [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidlow-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBeyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you're right<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhen I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUniversalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHow would you even get rid of networking. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7160037002775208, 'agreement': 0.4117647058823529, 'direct_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.13333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.864804469273743, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.021052631578947368}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7834008097165991, 'agreement': 0.4425287356321839, 'direct_attack': 0.18834080717488788, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20298507462686569, 'partial': 0.03636363636363636}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.606951871657754, 'recall': 0.606951871657754, 'f1': 0.606951871657754, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35676580244409595, 'recall': 0.33576157164260956, 'f1': 0.3307238127028346, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5410108809360217, 'recall': 0.606951871657754, 'f1': 0.5639954440414193, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidmaybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said~~slaves~~ robots
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThat doesn't devalue them, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsociety upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7153419593345656, 'agreement': 0.41621621621621624, 'direct_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.1875}, 'recall': {'support': 0.864804469273743, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7830045523520486, 'agreement': 0.44508670520231214, 'direct_attack': 0.18834080717488788, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20298507462686569, 'partial': 0.05405405405405406}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.607620320855615, 'recall': 0.607620320855615, 'f1': 0.607620320855615, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36835708965561087, 'recall': 0.33786683480050433, 'f1': 0.3346942386820337, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5445337875891904, 'recall': 0.607620320855615, 'f1': 0.5651570566350741, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it's the most efficient real system we have
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou are correct that this is false. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHowever, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidif we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSince I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Id just like to point out thatthis has never remotely seemed the case from my perspective as a lesbian. [NEWLINE] Beyond that, there are many people who want close relationships without romance, an obvious example would be asexual people. [NEWLINE] They can have close relationships that rival that of marriage, but how would you even quantify that? [NEWLINE] How can you even compare them?  [NEWLINE] What about the relationship of a brother and sister?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you limit it to just heterosexual non-related men and women, then maybe you're right, but then again who is to say what form of relationship is the highest, two very close lifetime friends who are platonic or a married couple?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The bottom line is that people are different from you can relationships are hard to compare. [NEWLINE] Maybe for you, every relationship with a woman is motivated by romance.  [NEWLINE] For someone other hetero guy it might not be.  [NEWLINE] Sexual attraction is not something that just shuts off so even if you're in a lifelong comitted closed relationshipyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people. [NEWLINE] Thats just reality for most people, and  its not necesarily harmful and its not really shallow.  [NEWLINE]  There are very few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, I don't need to feel guilty when I'm attracted to people I know I can't have?  [NEWLINE] MaybeI'm too black-and-white to think that the murmurs of my id are natural and not evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for which relationship is * higher * from a quantifiable standpoint, I see what you mean. [NEWLINE] When I said highest, I meant it not from a perspective of quantity of some sort, but of a level of worth. [NEWLINE] Looking at that statement, however, I think you're right again--who is to put a romantic relationship above a friendship?  [NEWLINE] It's a bit extreme and morbid, but if I were to put someone's spouse and someone's absolute best friend in front of a train and gave that person one to save, whom would they save?  [NEWLINE] Maybe I just find that once I reach a certain threshold with a guy-friend, I find that we become best friends, but when I reach that threshold with a girl-friend, I find that I want more. [NEWLINE] Maybe I haven't been around the block enough or had enough female friends to feel this way. [NEWLINE]  I don't have any lesbian friends ( as far as I know at least ), so  I don't know how I would react to being great friends with one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSexual attraction is not something that just shuts off<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou'll still probably feel attraction for other people
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBeyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwe have domesticated some animals
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7149446494464945, 'agreement': 0.41621621621621624, 'direct_attack': 0.27631578947368424, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8659217877094972, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7832238504295098, 'agreement': 0.44508670520231214, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20298507462686569, 'partial': 0.05454545454545455}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6082887700534759, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.6082887700534759, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.371495331027279, 'recall': 0.33809029848765515, 'f1': 0.3350060547986663, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.54544009179718, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.5654022562340706, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said you aren't looking to have your view changed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saiddegrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, Congregationalists and Universaliists. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOnce everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPurchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Stop supporting it how? [NEWLINE] As in never buying meat again, even as you know that doing so will not have any impact on the meat industry whatsoever, and won't make even an ounce of difference in the lives of animals?  [NEWLINE] What's the point?  [NEWLINE] If I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life.  [NEWLINE]  The only way to make real change in industries like this is to organize and participate in a boycott on a wide-scale level, and/or  to petition the government to make regulation changes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't buy ivory, dog leather or fur for the same reasons -  I find meat disgusting based on what I've seen and want no part of endorsing it whether it makes any difference overall or not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf I stop eating meat today, it won't make any difference whatsoever and won't save even a single animal's life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat's the point? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said they don't understand what the circumstances of today are
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmath was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI completely disagree. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBeyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7149446494464945, 'agreement': 0.41621621621621624, 'direct_attack': 0.27631578947368424, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8659217877094972, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7832238504295098, 'agreement': 0.44508670520231214, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20298507462686569, 'partial': 0.05454545454545455}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6082887700534759, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.6082887700534759, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.371495331027279, 'recall': 0.33809029848765515, 'f1': 0.3350060547986663, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.54544009179718, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.5654022562340706, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt is also downright silly to consider
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut the money doesn't just disappear. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat's exactly what it's turning into
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI enjoyed it
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  How could such a subjective view as the superiority of a cut of three films be argued against?  [NEWLINE]  I prefer the pacing in the shorter cut and the director agrees with me is hardly something that can be rigorously argued against.  [NEWLINE]  I would argue that the better one depends on context.  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed the theatrical cut when I first watched it but the extended was probably better when I had a lot of free time and wanted to watch a favourite movie in a different way.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This sub is currently engaged in a 46 comment thread about whether or not [men should sit down to urinate. ]  ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I'm sure we can find a way to argue about movies ; )  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidgun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7152073732718894, 'agreement': 0.41621621621621624, 'direct_attack': 0.27631578947368424, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2518518518518518, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8670391061452514, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7838383838383839, 'agreement': 0.44508670520231214, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20359281437125745, 'partial': 0.05454545454545455}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.608957219251337, 'recall': 0.608957219251337, 'f1': 0.608957219251337, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.37191824616272834, 'recall': 0.33831376217480597, 'f1': 0.33525050942931944, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5458436053949386, 'recall': 0.608957219251337, 'f1': 0.5658507506258329, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthey certainly aren't hard to make<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd they certainly have been made throughout history. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIsn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYour OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidif the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnd sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthat will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidbecause I want to know what older, more mature people think
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7162661737523105, 'agreement': 0.4117647058823529, 'direct_attack': 0.27631578947368424, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8659217877094972, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7840161861406172, 'agreement': 0.4425287356321839, 'direct_attack': 0.18918918918918923, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20298507462686569, 'partial': 0.05454545454545455}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6082887700534759, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.6082887700534759, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.37086933382166953, 'recall': 0.33809029848765515, 'f1': 0.3346529280268621, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5457516366434055, 'recall': 0.6082887700534759, 'f1': 0.5656009911008155, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Sure, but that doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting. [NEWLINE] We want to live in a world without bullies, whether those bullies act on behalf of beliefs, religions, countries, or even out own governments. [NEWLINE]  Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If you want to protect the freedom to speak for any of us, you have to protect the freedom to speak for all of us. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I certainly agree with your points - I didn't mean to imply that I was only for * * some * * freedom of speech. [NEWLINE] I just think lately there's been a lot of antagonistic material being published and everyone cries freedom of speech when certain groups get upset. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Why can't America be the bigger person and say " Ok, we won't publish certain types of material, not because we're afraid of you but because we respect your views. "  [NEWLINE] Is that so hard? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat doesn't mean we condone the bully's actions and don't punish the bullies for acting<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Complete freedom in the expression of any idea, offensive or not, is a major element of that world
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThis would eventually make the human race smarter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtherefore more likely to survive and advance the human race. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhy is it tied to what the majority wants
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTHAT is the issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmy experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThat is what life is like<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidReading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlso, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7161290322580646, 'agreement': 0.4117647058823529, 'direct_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25757575757575757, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8681564245810056, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.784848484848485, 'agreement': 0.4425287356321839, 'direct_attack': 0.18834080717488788, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2054380664652568, 'partial': 0.05454545454545455}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6096256684491979, 'recall': 0.6096256684491979, 'f1': 0.6096256684491979, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.37163935368868956, 'recall': 0.3385372258619569, 'f1': 0.33514030973325365, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.546327111693706, 'recall': 0.6096256684491979, 'f1': 0.5663424275615733, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Quite honestly it dilutes it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMost people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBut most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou didn't exist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe only issue with that is it's very subjective. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAmerica's innovation and education rankings would be lower
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7157313707451702, 'agreement': 0.4117647058823529, 'direct_attack': 0.2727272727272727, 'undercutter_attack': 0.26153846153846155, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8692737430167597, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1708542713567839, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7850655903128154, 'agreement': 0.4425287356321839, 'direct_attack': 0.18834080717488788, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2066869300911854, 'partial': 0.05454545454545455}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.6102941176470589, 'recall': 0.6102941176470589, 'f1': 0.6102941176470589, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3723523621786515, 'recall': 0.33876068954910765, 'f1': 0.3354335035513054, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5466163302996803, 'recall': 0.6102941176470589, 'f1': 0.5666384390937493, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidOne person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think all these comparisons are true
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said For me, that wasn't a completionist run. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers)<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe information is gutted and moved around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidChristianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidExercise regimens depend entirely on your goals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWalking
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I might as well go ahead and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saiddeath is coming and will erase all experience regardless
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIndividuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think is flawed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidif they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSo the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7161290322580646, 'agreement': 0.4095744680851064, 'direct_attack': 0.2692307692307692, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25384615384615383, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8681564245810056, 'agreement': 0.4782608695652174, 'direct_attack': 0.14383561643835616, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1658291457286432, 'partial': 0.031578947368421054}, 'f1': {'support': 0.784848484848485, 'agreement': 0.44126074498567336, 'direct_attack': 0.18750000000000003, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20060790273556228, 'partial': 0.05454545454545455}, 'support': {'support': 895, 'agreement': 161, 'direct_attack': 146, 'undercutter_attack': 199, 'partial': 95}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.608957219251337, 'recall': 0.608957219251337, 'f1': 0.608957219251337, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36975608468401877, 'recall': 0.3375322007363287, 'f1': 0.333752517423035, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5452540442217558, 'recall': 0.608957219251337, 'f1': 0.5654813935215792, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThats because we teach everyone to think the same way. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIm really good at doing certain things. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It really depends on how you view animal welfare.  [NEWLINE]  I think most vegetarians see killing and eating an animal as wrong regardless of how good the conditions it lives in are.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guess that this comes from my utilitarian-in-most-cases ethics.  [NEWLINE] I believe that small-medium improvements over large scales, such as an entire market, are better than large improvements at tiny scales.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Moreover, this CMV is not about " veganism and vegetarianism are bad "  it's about " eating meat responsibly is better for animal welfare than abstaining from eating meat "  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTherefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidhasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPeople were looking from a few meters, not doing anything
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, Congregationalists and Universaliists. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I understand and support discounts for military personnel. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')


		-------------RUN 5-----------
			------------EPOCH 1---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI guarantee no one would care. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTherefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthis slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7692307692307693, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.05555555555555555, 'undercutter_attack': 0.11194029850746269, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.01349527665317139, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.17073170731707318, 'undercutter_attack': 0.6481481481481481, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.026525198938992044, 'agreement': 0.0, 'direct_attack': 0.08383233532934131, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19090909090909092, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.10104011887072809, 'recall': 0.10104011887072809, 'f1': 0.10104011887072809, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.1873453246587575, 'recall': 0.16647502642367856, 'f1': 0.06025332503548486, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.44202649457023946, 'recall': 0.10104011887072809, 'f1': 0.04524058126788619, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 2---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe information is gutted and moved around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Patriotism is really just this belief. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidpartly, 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCertain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.5776081424936387, 'agreement': 0.27586206896551724, 'direct_attack': 0.08695652173913043, 'undercutter_attack': 0.06086956521739131, 'partial': 0.0}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9190283400809717, 'agreement': 0.04145077720207254, 'direct_attack': 0.016260162601626018, 'undercutter_attack': 0.043209876543209874, 'partial': 0.0}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7093750000000001, 'agreement': 0.07207207207207209, 'direct_attack': 0.027397260273972605, 'undercutter_attack': 0.05054151624548736, 'partial': 0.0}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5185735512630015, 'recall': 0.5185735512630015, 'f1': 0.5185735512630015, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.20025925968313554, 'recall': 0.20398983128557605, 'f1': 0.17187716971830644, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.3728124328657218, 'recall': 0.5185735512630015, 'f1': 0.4094460427603101, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMore intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIdeally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlso, only one of my parents finished high school. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI used it as an example of an intelligence measure
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI grant you that there is merit to that idea<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidif someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 3---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAt what point do your rules against networking kick in? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6690647482014388, 'agreement': 0.5035971223021583, 'direct_attack': 0.07692307692307693, 'undercutter_attack': 0.16455696202531644, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7530364372469636, 'agreement': 0.3626943005181347, 'direct_attack': 0.032520325203252036, 'undercutter_attack': 0.32098765432098764, 'partial': 0.007874015748031496}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7085714285714285, 'agreement': 0.42168674698795183, 'direct_attack': 0.045714285714285714, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21757322175732216, 'partial': 0.015151515151515152}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5089153046062407, 'recall': 0.5089153046062407, 'f1': 0.5089153046062407, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.32282838189039803, 'recall': 0.2954225466074739, 'f1': 0.28173943963650067, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4862488776606406, 'recall': 0.5089153046062407, 'f1': 0.4823409600534094, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe same goes for when something is priced above its market value<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidnot because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthen my life is still pointless and meaningless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor I will be dead and won't know what I did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no afterlife
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidExceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 4---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidContinuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI get seasick lol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch leaders are given a free hand<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidPolitical parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7272727272727273, 'agreement': 0.3418803418803419, 'direct_attack': 0.1348314606741573, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20307692307692307, 'partial': 0.11764705882352941}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5182186234817814, 'agreement': 0.41450777202072536, 'direct_attack': 0.0975609756097561, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4074074074074074, 'partial': 0.15748031496062992}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6052009456264775, 'agreement': 0.3747072599531615, 'direct_attack': 0.11320754716981131, 'undercutter_attack': 0.271047227926078, 'partial': 0.1346801346801347}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.4175334323922734, 'recall': 0.4175334323922734, 'f1': 0.4175334323922734, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.30494170234553575, 'recall': 0.31903501869606005, 'f1': 0.2997686230711326, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4972629305824428, 'recall': 0.4175334323922734, 'f1': 0.4425787208101549, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said it obviously does<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut the money doesn't just disappear. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhen this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNo matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidall of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Making a political statement is not the same as organizing a boycott.  [NEWLINE] Vegans live the way they do because they feel a certain way about the way we exploit animals.  [NEWLINE] However, I strongly, strongly doubt they believe that in doing so, they are making great strides in improving conditions for animals.  [NEWLINE] I think you are misinterpreting their motives.  [NEWLINE] I don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views.  [NEWLINE] However, I do NOT believe that my actions will bring about the demise of the Salvation Army, or really have any effect at all.  [NEWLINE]  That is not my motive.  [NEWLINE] That would just be delusional. [NEWLINE]  I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I totally agree,  and that's why i tried to keep the scope of this CMV relatively limited to " improving general animal welfare ". [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes but your stated view is " veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare, " as if there are real people that actually think that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There are.  [NEWLINE]  I know several of them ( I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the best kind of evidence but there you have it ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE] I mean, if you've met people like that, they're wrong, simple as that.  [NEWLINE] And they don't represent the majority of vegans, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I strongly doubt there are people who actually think, " not eating meat is * definitely * the BEST THING I can do for animal welfare! "  [NEWLINE]  That makes zero sense.  [NEWLINE]  Even if they think that being vegan is a way to directly improve conditions for animals, I don't think they believe it's the * best * way.  [NEWLINE] Sorry but I think this is a strawman argument. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's good to know that this view doesn't make up the majority of vegans. [NEWLINE] The vegans who believe the way I've described and who made up a good chunk of the vegans I've encountered, were a large part of my inspiration to write this CMV. [NEWLINE]  That plus the fact that a large portion of the vegan advocacy I've seen revolves around the horrors of factory farming which, I believe, would be far more effectively reduced by responsible carnivory than by veganism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't quite think that makes my argument a strawman, or incorrect, but your point is well-taken. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians are not delusional and feel similarly about the meat industry as I do about the Salvation Army. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't believe in donating to the Salvation Army, for example, because there have been incidents in the past where their organization has denied aid to homosexuals and publicly expressed homophobic views. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSelf-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSelf awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEvery middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAnd when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidinstead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhile you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI did do the completionist run! <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt went - well, okay, I guess. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 5---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTodays moderates are tomorrows conservatives<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.5859375, 'agreement': 0.4205607476635514, 'direct_attack': 0.06818181818181818, 'undercutter_attack': 0.4473684210526316, 'partial': 0.6}, 'recall': {'support': 0.9109311740890689, 'agreement': 0.23316062176165803, 'direct_attack': 0.024390243902439025, 'undercutter_attack': 0.10493827160493827, 'partial': 0.023622047244094488}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7131537242472267, 'agreement': 0.3, 'direct_attack': 0.035928143712574856, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17, 'partial': 0.045454545454545456}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5520059435364042, 'recall': 0.5520059435364042, 'f1': 0.5520059435364042, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.4244096973796002, 'recall': 0.25940847172043974, 'f1': 0.2529072826828694, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4995601483253755, 'recall': 0.5520059435364042, 'f1': 0.4636543823302889, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCertainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidat the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA bolt to the brain sounds bad
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYes
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIt is comparable to that, too
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the consequences of their decisions won't affect them
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The Brave Little Toaster is rated " Fresh " on Rotten Tomatoes, and came fairly close to winning the Sundance Film Festival in 1987.  [NEWLINE] The reason it is doesn't have attention now is because it didn't get attention back in the day.  [NEWLINE] The movie was not widely released in theaters because they never found a distributor for it.  [NEWLINE] So most of us who saw it did so in comparatively limited TV showings, or picked up a VHS tape.  [NEWLINE] It wasn't a made for TV movie, but that's what ended up happening to it.  [NEWLINE] It has massively outsized footprint for how easy it is to find and view.  [NEWLINE] Those who worked on it went on to do great things, and those who stumbled across it remember it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, in conclusion,  The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly,  but it is obscure and can be a hard sell because key elements haven't aged well.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Holy Crap I never knew it only went straight to VHS. [NEWLINE] That does explain a lot which kinda makes me sad it never got the loving from a massive portion of people like Iron Giant. [NEWLINE] Maybe a rerelease on Netflix will reignite the fire of the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] btw Um you get a delta for proving me wrong and that the movie was loved by the people but had very little in terms of distribution [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The Brave Little Toaster isn't underrated as it is rated very highly, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 6---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saiddehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies... <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidlook at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBeyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6469920544835415, 'agreement': 0.5945945945945946, 'direct_attack': 0.14388489208633093, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19811320754716982, 'partial': 0.2727272727272727}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7692307692307693, 'agreement': 0.11398963730569948, 'direct_attack': 0.3252032520325203, 'undercutter_attack': 0.12962962962962962, 'partial': 0.09448818897637795}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7028360049321825, 'agreement': 0.19130434782608696, 'direct_attack': 0.19950124688279303, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15671641791044777, 'partial': 0.14035087719298245}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.49405646359583955, 'recall': 0.49405646359583955, 'f1': 0.49405646359583955, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3712624042877819, 'recall': 0.2865082954349993, 'f1': 0.2781417789488986, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5041652407984285, 'recall': 0.49405646359583955, 'f1': 0.4646913025681776, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI don't think it would<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI want them to be killed humanely
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPolitical parties appeal to these learned biases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that doesn't mean I should fear Christians. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidassuming they all die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSlaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes, intelligence matters. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ]<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidextra attention results in health benefits<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidlife is ultimately meaningless and pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwe die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 7---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidGenerally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6730038022813688, 'agreement': 0.7241379310344828, 'direct_attack': 0.11811023622047244, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1807909604519774, 'partial': 0.23529411764705882}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7165991902834008, 'agreement': 0.21761658031088082, 'direct_attack': 0.24390243902439024, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19753086419753085, 'partial': 0.12598425196850394}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6941176470588236, 'agreement': 0.3346613545816733, 'direct_attack': 0.15915119363395225, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1887905604719764, 'partial': 0.1641025641025641}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.4836552748885587, 'recall': 0.4836552748885587, 'f1': 0.4836552748885587, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.38626740952707206, 'recall': 0.3003266651569413, 'f1': 0.30816466396979797, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5290880280606719, 'recall': 0.4836552748885587, 'f1': 0.4828614495983011, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis doesn't say anything about christianity<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYes, intelligence matters. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOr are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 8---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidYou can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe two are often one the same
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6807297605473204, 'agreement': 0.4941860465116279, 'direct_attack': 0.125, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24528301886792453, 'partial': 0.2413793103448276}, 'recall': {'support': 0.805668016194332, 'agreement': 0.44041450777202074, 'direct_attack': 0.08130081300813008, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24074074074074073, 'partial': 0.11023622047244094}, 'f1': {'support': 0.737948084054388, 'agreement': 0.4657534246575342, 'direct_attack': 0.09852216748768473, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24299065420560748, 'partial': 0.15135135135135133}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5534918276374443, 'recall': 0.5534918276374443, 'f1': 0.5534918276374443, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3573156272543401, 'recall': 0.33567205963753294, 'f1': 0.3393131363513132, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5093348298757099, 'recall': 0.5534918276374443, 'f1': 0.5255678123678461, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidReading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Because it is erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidConsequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhile you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 9---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said [URL] 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think you may have missed the point<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNone of the examples you given actually hurt anybody. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  [NEWLINE] Machines don't have money either so they won't bother buying services from us.  [NEWLINE] Cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  [NEWLINE] What would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  [NEWLINE] If the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  [NEWLINE] They couldn't just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people. [NEWLINE]  The rural folk can survive without the urban folk but  their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [deleted] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe reason that the end of our current economic paradigm won't be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidonce they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7115666178623719, 'agreement': 0.5645161290322581, 'direct_attack': 0.13333333333333333, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17567567567567569, 'partial': 0.2}, 'recall': {'support': 0.6558704453441295, 'agreement': 0.3626943005181347, 'direct_attack': 0.45528455284552843, 'undercutter_attack': 0.08024691358024691, 'partial': 0.07086614173228346}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6825842696629214, 'agreement': 0.4416403785488959, 'direct_attack': 0.20626151012891342, 'undercutter_attack': 0.11016949152542373, 'partial': 0.10465116279069768}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.4710252600297177, 'recall': 0.4710252600297177, 'f1': 0.4710252600297177, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3570183511807278, 'recall': 0.3249924708040646, 'f1': 0.3090613625313704, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.524875138334846, 'recall': 0.4710252600297177, 'f1': 0.48108458984216584, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSeparating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidby it's very nature implies you cannot sum them
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] many laws regulate things that are simply far too complex to simplify to that level. [NEWLINE]  It generally takes an undergraduate college level education at minimum to understand something like international financial markets and to then effectively regulate them. [NEWLINE]  Laws have to be made with a working knowledge of the system and their language will reflect that.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2nd reply : I will grant thatchanging the US laws would not change international laws, and the systems of treaties necessary to interface with other countries' economies would be complex in proportion to the complexities of those countries' economic law. [NEWLINE] So, you get a delta for that point. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I do think that the actual practice of economics would become drastically simpler if the law were simpler internationally ( in ways that I respect would still be complicated ) but I agree with the point you didn't necessarily actually make that  reforming all the countries' economic legal systems to be simpler in compatible ways at the same time is a way bigger implausibility than reforming just one country's economic law in a way that is self-consistent.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMatthew 2 : 11
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou didn't exist
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI do see a distinction between a pet and livestock<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Hard to tell
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAnd when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidinstead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 10---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThings need change. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEducation
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6823821339950372, 'agreement': 0.38461538461538464, 'direct_attack': 0.15677966101694915, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1951219512195122, 'partial': 0.5}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7422402159244265, 'agreement': 0.41450777202072536, 'direct_attack': 0.3008130081300813, 'undercutter_attack': 0.09876543209876543, 'partial': 0.05511811023622047}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7110536522301228, 'agreement': 0.39900249376558605, 'direct_attack': 0.20612813370473537, 'undercutter_attack': 0.13114754098360656, 'partial': 0.09929078014184396}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.512630014858841, 'recall': 0.512630014858841, 'f1': 0.512630014858841, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.38377982616937667, 'recall': 0.32228890768204377, 'f1': 0.309324520165179, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5158020690369521, 'recall': 0.512630014858841, 'f1': 0.4926506900165825, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSurrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saida substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIs political power in the US held by elected officials? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. " 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhen plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwill stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Did you forget that there were two people there already with guns and training?  [NEWLINE] The two armed police officers guarding the place.  [NEWLINE]  That would be the 1 out of 5 people you call for, and as evident,  it didn't solve much. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  They were there, but it seems to me as evidence that just having police is not enough. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThese event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 11---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAbout the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAlmost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ) 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6681564245810055, 'agreement': 0.48125, 'direct_attack': 0.14912280701754385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.189873417721519, 'partial': 0.42105263157894735}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8070175438596491, 'agreement': 0.39896373056994816, 'direct_attack': 0.13821138211382114, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18518518518518517, 'partial': 0.06299212598425197}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7310513447432763, 'agreement': 0.43626062322946174, 'direct_attack': 0.14345991561181434, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1875, 'partial': 0.1095890410958904}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5423476968796433, 'recall': 0.5423476968796433, 'f1': 0.5423476968796433, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3818910561798032, 'recall': 0.31847399354257105, 'f1': 0.3215721849360885, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5130463920944245, 'recall': 0.5423476968796433, 'f1': 0.5110295130590528, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthey never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line]<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidmost poor children don't become prisoners
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidNo, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidA good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 12---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOf course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThere are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I had parents who were extremely persistent about making sure i stayed on track.  [NEWLINE] I was only recently diagnosed with adhd a reading disability and im 20 years old. [NEWLINE] I graduated on time but i struggled so much. [NEWLINE] I failed a bunch of stuff and was constantly embarrassed to show my grades to other people.  [NEWLINE] I lost hope often because things felt hopeless, which lead teachers, doctors, family and other students to think i just didnt care. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] An issue is there are a ton of people with " disabilities " more so than you'd think.  [NEWLINE] Thats because we teach everyone to think the same way.  [NEWLINE] Thats the issue.  [NEWLINE] Im really good at doing certain things.  [NEWLINE] For example, i can read, write, and even speak backwards pretty well.  [NEWLINE] My brain is wired differently.  [NEWLINE] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. [NEWLINE] It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. [NEWLINE] THAT is the issue. [NEWLINE] Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The problem isnt always bad parenting, though that can play a role, the problem is a black and white educational system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Treating everyone the same way, other than special classes for " dumb " kids is the problem.  [NEWLINE] Learning seems hard or dumb to some kids and  thats because its not tapping into their mind right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If a child can discuss something he or she cares about then the parents are just a plus.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I cant do the things the average person can, but i can do a lot of things that they cant. It doesnt make me stupid, because im capable of the same things just in a different way, but my experience at school did its best to convince me that i was stupid. THAT is the issue. Everyone has a mind that works in its own way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] I think that builds my initial point.  [NEWLINE] Parents should be educated on how to identify * how * their child's mind works.  [NEWLINE]  This is what I meant when I said " 100% " on the parents.  [NEWLINE]  You're parents would've known how to turn the way your mind worked into a successful academic career, in a perfect world.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt doesnt make me stupid<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think that builds my initial point. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe Marines don't have their own medical services
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6625, 'agreement': 0.445, 'direct_attack': 0.1746031746031746, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18032786885245902, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.786774628879892, 'agreement': 0.46113989637305697, 'direct_attack': 0.17886178861788618, 'undercutter_attack': 0.13580246913580246, 'partial': 0.047244094488188976}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7193090684762491, 'agreement': 0.4529262086513995, 'direct_attack': 0.17670682730923692, 'undercutter_attack': 0.15492957746478872, 'partial': 0.08275862068965519}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5364041604754829, 'recall': 0.5364041604754829, 'f1': 0.5364041604754829, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3591528753577934, 'recall': 0.3219645754989653, 'f1': 0.31732606051826584, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4976375472240878, 'recall': 0.5364041604754829, 'f1': 0.5035413478057494, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You can make arguments for something like Toy Story
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ). 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is very little skill involved in playing the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThese types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBut the money doesn't just disappear. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou can create your own meaning. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMay as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A lot ( dunno % ) vegetarians/vegans see killing animals for food is fundamentally unethical.  [NEWLINE] So they are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms. [NEWLINE] I personally don't have a problem with animals being killed humanely,  so  if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare. [NEWLINE] But that's me. [NEWLINE] But  I agree with you that becoming vegetarian just for that is not very helpful for welfare. [NEWLINE] I just see people's reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] sure, but as i've mentioned several times, that's not the point of this particular CMV post.  [NEWLINE]  The point is that responsible carnivory is better for general livestock welfare than veg *  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Another strong pro-veg point is that meat production is really bad for environment.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthey are not doing it for better state of animal welfare in farms<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if I become vegetarian it would be about welfare
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAnd when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 13---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOne of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidQuit putting the pussy on a pedestal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidEducation<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHad a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance.  [NEWLINE]  What a douchebag line.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Sure firefighters, EMT's, and nurses do great things for people... for those who have money and great insurance. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  It's not like the dispatcher chooses which calls to answer based on insurance policies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What a douchebag line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Youandll have fun [here] ( [URL] ), then. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ]
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6565217391304348, 'agreement': 0.4779874213836478, 'direct_attack': 0.16793893129770993, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1693548387096774, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.815114709851552, 'agreement': 0.39378238341968913, 'direct_attack': 0.17886178861788618, 'undercutter_attack': 0.12962962962962962, 'partial': 0.031496062992125984}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7272727272727273, 'agreement': 0.4318181818181818, 'direct_attack': 0.1732283464566929, 'undercutter_attack': 0.14685314685314685, 'partial': 0.05755395683453238}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5401188707280832, 'recall': 0.5401188707280832, 'f1': 0.5401188707280832, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36102725277096065, 'recall': 0.30977691490217657, 'f1': 0.3073452718470563, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4971467212307694, 'recall': 0.5401188707280832, 'f1': 0.5012307941473765, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidwhen plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's like playing poker with players who never bet
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said To be fair that's not specific to 4chan <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said that phenomenon has been around forever 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidConversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [ENDQ] What are you talking about? [NEWLINE] Do you really think abortions are only had by incompetent people who couldn't be good parents?  [NEWLINE] This appears to be a belief that has led you to conclude that America must be better off but  you are really misinformed about the type of women who obtain abortions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That may be true.  [NEWLINE] My thinking was that abortions were mainly required by unfortunate people, who in turn from their difficult circumstances, would've raised the child to be the same.  [NEWLINE]  Can you counter that?  I have a [source] ( [URL] ) that shows that abortions are typically ( and in some years, mostly ) had by people without enough wealth to care for there kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Sure, hopefully I can find some sources to support this argument as well, otherwise I may have to change my mind! [NEWLINE] [ [URL] ] ( Here is a well sourced link to some stats about women who have abortions ) [NEWLINE] Some stats for example include " 31% of women obtaining abortions are in school ; 68% of women who have abortions are employed. "  [NEWLINE]  " 33% of women who obtain abortions have family incomes under $11, 000 annually, 11% of abortions are obtained by women whose household incomes are $50, 000 or more. "  [NEWLINE] So that means the majority of those having abortions have income between $11, 000 and $55, 000, which is above the Federal Poverty line.  [NEWLINE] I can't confirm but I do recall reading once that a common reason for women to abort is becoming pregnant too soon after having a child. [NEWLINE]  It could be about finances but could just be too soon for a woman to go through again.  [NEWLINE]  Pregnancy is hard on the body and far riskier than an abortion performed within a few weeks.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIts a complicated issue<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIts debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit goes back to the workers
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidits the real ones that have problems. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 14---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to go a slightly different route here and ask why you would join the Army specifically? [NEWLINE] Different branches have different options and very different lifestyles and culture. [NEWLINE]  For example, you mentioned that you wanted to see more of the world.  [NEWLINE]  The best branch for that would be the Navy.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I get seasick lol.  [NEWLINE] The Marines aren't knows for their... Genius...  [NEWLINE] The air force isn't right for me because  I couldn't fly and  don't want to be an engineer. [NEWLINE] Army it is then. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you need to get a bit better informed if you're going with those particular stereotypes. [NEWLINE] Did you know the Army's minimum ASVAB score is lower than the Marines, for instance?  [NEWLINE] As for getting seasick, it's not as much of an issue on such large ships.  [NEWLINE] Don't go for the Coast Guard though, that's for sure. [NEWLINE] And there is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship.  [NEWLINE] Especially since the Marines don't have their own medical services. [NEWLINE] The Navy provides them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the end, I'd probably recommend the Airforce for you. [NEWLINE] When you join the military, you sign a contract that gives you a specific ( or not so specific if you join the Marines ) job. [NEWLINE] If there is a slot open for a doctor in the Airforce, they'll put in in your contract. [NEWLINE] If there isn't, you can either wait or go to another branch. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Can I ask how much you actually know about actually * being in the military? * [NEWLINE] I don't want to offend you, but a lot of people looking to join tend to forget that bit, when it's really the most important part. [NEWLINE] All when the clostest they've been to military life aremovies which are either terrible representations or great representations of * very specific parts * of the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You won't be a * doctor in the military *, you will be a * military doctor. * [NEWLINE] That's why I recommend the Air Force. [NEWLINE]  Out of all the branches, it has the most in common with the civilian world in regards to its culture.  [NEWLINE]  It's only 60 something years old, after all. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, thanks so much for the info! [NEWLINE] I think I still have a lot to research but my main reason against the marines was that they are very homogeneous.  [NEWLINE] From all the marines that I've met they all think and act the same way to the point where it freaks me out a little.  [NEWLINE]  They subscribe to the same pages on facebook and whatnot,  it's a little creep tbh. [NEWLINE] I'm definitely going to look at the airforce, thanks to what you've suggested! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Look at it like this. [NEWLINE] The Army is a military service, the Air Force is a business, the Navy is a " denim and leather " bar, and  the Marines are a cult. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI get seasick lol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthere is actually a decent chance to never set foot on a ship. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidweight lifting is by far the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's also the most beneficial for older people
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm one of these people. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6535181236673774, 'agreement': 0.5103448275862069, 'direct_attack': 0.18705035971223022, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17117117117117117, 'partial': 0.38461538461538464}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8272604588394062, 'agreement': 0.38341968911917096, 'direct_attack': 0.21138211382113822, 'undercutter_attack': 0.11728395061728394, 'partial': 0.03937007874015748}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7301965455628351, 'agreement': 0.4378698224852071, 'direct_attack': 0.19847328244274812, 'undercutter_attack': 0.13919413919413917, 'partial': 0.07142857142857144}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5475482912332839, 'recall': 0.5475482912332839, 'f1': 0.5475482912332839, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.38133997335047404, 'recall': 0.3157432582274314, 'f1': 0.3154324722227002, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5069365224235902, 'recall': 0.5475482912332839, 'f1': 0.5064023839992889, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidyou're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Simply speaking, one person can set in motion drastic change for an entire nation. [NEWLINE]  55 million chances to do so isn't a bad place to start.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] If that was a good basis for having a huge population, India would be a superpower. [NEWLINE] Good point none-the-less, but I disagree [NEWLINE]  ( should be noted that India has less internet users and that the availibilty of the internet may play a huge part in people with less wealth being able to be innovative,  so  with the internet taken into account, your answer could be true )  [Source] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOne possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThough it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidfactory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidOther systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is not a good reason to use anything. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWe don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidwe know some
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOkay
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 15---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidDo I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'll preface this by saying I'm a fan of both the books and movies.  [NEWLINE] I like them both for different reasons, but gun to my head I probably slightly prefer the films.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( The hobbit movies can S my D though. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] IMO, the extended cuts seriously throw off the pacing of the films.  [NEWLINE] When watching the theatrical cuts, I get swept into the story.  [NEWLINE] When watching the extended cuts, I get distracted, and reminded that I'm watching a movie.  [NEWLINE] They break the fourth wall, if you will.  [NEWLINE] Peter Jackson agrees with me :  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The main objection to this, of course, will be that the extended cuts are able to include more scenes from the books, and are therefore better.  [NEWLINE] Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to judge the quality of an adaptation by how closely it mirrors the source material, rather than by the strength of it's story telling.  [NEWLINE] The LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor.  [NEWLINE] They stretched some scenes from brief chapters into center pieces ( Helms's Deep ) and cut out some of the more... esoteric portions completely ( Tom Bombadil ).  [NEWLINE] Basically, I'm glad Jackson opted to make excellent * * movies, * * instead of attempting a shot for shot visualization of a * * book, * *  and I think the extended cuts subvert his success in that regard.  [NEWLINE] Books and movies are not the same, and in general, * * the more an adaptation respects the inherent differences between the various media it's adapting to and from, the better the final product will be. * * [NEWLINE]  This is much more important than it's faithfulness to the source material.  [NEWLINE]  I believe this is true for all adaptations, not just LOTR.  [NEWLINE] Feel free to C my V on this larger point as well. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I want to point out that I absolutely * * could not * * stand to read the LotR trilogy.  [NEWLINE] And I tried.  [NEWLINE] I loved The Hobbit, even though it got slow, but I found Tolkien's prose to be far too slow-paced and filled with inane babbling about things too far removed from the plot.  [NEWLINE] I loved the extended edition because I get more engaged in an audio-visual medium than I do into books, as a general rule ( this gets suspended for pretty much anything that starts with " Harry Potter and the... " but that's an exception ), and the extended trilogy let me really grasp the world of Middle Earth for the first time.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And I'm the sort of person who, despite not really liking to read, will read summaries about the world surrounding my favorite movies or video games, because these are things I * want to know * but typically aren't in the film/game, so I endure the chore.  [NEWLINE]  I * love * that the extended edition helped with this, especially in this situation,  because  most of the answers to that on the internet before were " If you want to know more you should just read the damn books, scrub! " because nerds are like that sometimes.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Thank God you make an exception for HP ; ) [NEWLINE] Best comment on the thread and you get a delta for pointing out that the extended editions give non-book readers an experience that is closer to the immersion of reading the books. [NEWLINE]  As a book reader, I'll still be sticking to theatrical cuts though.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: The theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings are superior to the extended cuts and should be considered the definitive versions.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe LOTR movies are some of the best adaptations of all time * precisely because * they left a whole lot of the books un-filmed, and a whole lot more on the cutting room floor. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Cheating isn't just a single mistake though. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidBut should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's iconic in its genre. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6784869976359338, 'agreement': 0.4931506849315068, 'direct_attack': 0.16363636363636364, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18636363636363637, 'partial': 0.4166666666666667}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7746288798920378, 'agreement': 0.37305699481865284, 'direct_attack': 0.14634146341463414, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25308641975308643, 'partial': 0.07874015748031496}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7233774417139256, 'agreement': 0.42477876106194684, 'direct_attack': 0.15450643776824036, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21465968586387435, 'partial': 0.1324503311258278}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5312035661218425, 'recall': 0.5312035661218425, 'f1': 0.5312035661218425, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.38766086984682147, 'recall': 0.32517078307174524, 'f1': 0.329954531506763, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5209300118312453, 'recall': 0.5312035661218425, 'f1': 0.51159386196389, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSomeone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry...<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtheir chances of getting shot would also increase
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNo matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe boss owns the factory where the workers work
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFair enough
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI want the animals to be raised humanely
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it obviously does
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 16---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidTo view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUniversalism<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou are forgetting the need to make money also wains
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou are doing 2 things<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIf you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone her
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6895734597156398, 'agreement': 0.4682080924855491, 'direct_attack': 0.17894736842105263, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22009569377990432, 'partial': 0.36}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7854251012145749, 'agreement': 0.41968911917098445, 'direct_attack': 0.13821138211382114, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2839506172839506, 'partial': 0.07086614173228346}, 'f1': {'support': 0.734384858044164, 'agreement': 0.4426229508196721, 'direct_attack': 0.1559633027522936, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24797843665768196, 'partial': 0.11842105263157895}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5460624071322436, 'recall': 0.5460624071322436, 'f1': 0.5460624071322436, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3833649228804291, 'recall': 0.33962847230312293, 'f1': 0.3398741201810781, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5235691858894012, 'recall': 0.5460624071322436, 'f1': 0.5230318543686547, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSomeone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said[bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou can create your own meaning. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMay as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for money<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe guy stood up and tried to restart his car
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidhow could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 17---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game * <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] you are forgetting the need to make money also wains,  as unemployment rises it simply converts half the population to communism while the working class keep capitalism [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Isn't communism the reason why The USSR lost the cold war and North Korea a joke?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] partly,  but communism in combination with capitalism has a different approach then pure communism, one of the failures of communism was the lack of incentive, with a part capitalism those with drive can still succeed, but everyone else will still have basic living tools,  [NEWLINE] and i won't lie, people will see a reduction in what they are able to buy, but when you balance that out with perpetual unemployment its still better then the alternative.  [NEWLINE] ps [NEWLINE]  Communism has some flaws,  but  it has also had a long time for people to find solutions to those flaws,  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI do disagree with Gade a little bit. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhy is it tied to what the majority wants
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidsuch discounts should be given to them. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIf a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality [USER0] [NEWLINE] I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join.  [NEWLINE] Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U. S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. [NEWLINE] I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. [NEWLINE] I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. [NEWLINE] So here's where I am now : currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [NEWLINE] Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [NEWLINE] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my timebecause I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [NEWLINE] My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason. [NEWLINE] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology,  the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life,  I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I look forward to having my views challenged! [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS ( the military medical school ) and become and Army doctor. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] FYI, you don't have to go to USHS to be a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] You can go to civilian medical school, and get HPSP which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Well, it's not worth it for the money [NEWLINE]. You'll lose money by taking HPSP and especially with USHS ( a longer commitment than HPSP ).  [NEWLINE] You'll owe the military tons of time for the training, so you won't be able to enter civilian practice for years.  [NEWLINE] Civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  [NEWLINE] A civilian neurosurgeon can make over 400k easily.  [NEWLINE] A military surgeon will never see that much. [NEWLINE] So, with NSRGY you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans. [NEWLINE] This is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  [NEWLINE] Neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military's neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  [NEWLINE] You may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several GMO tours before starting your 7 year neurosurgery residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other things that I've considered : I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you're not all in with the military you'll hate being a military doctor.  [NEWLINE] The only reason to do HPSP or USHS is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  [NEWLINE] If you're ambivalent the risk is too great.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm also poor and medical school in the military ( from what I understand ) pays for smart kids. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  [NEWLINE]  You'll easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you'll easily pay it off after residency.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, don't do it unless you are 100% committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be NSRGY [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ That whipped me around real fast. [NEWLINE] I guess it's more about being a military doctor rather than a doctor in the military. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidCivilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.665929203539823, 'agreement': 0.4484536082474227, 'direct_attack': 0.2079207920792079, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2, 'partial': 0.42857142857142855}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8124156545209177, 'agreement': 0.45077720207253885, 'direct_attack': 0.17073170731707318, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1728395061728395, 'partial': 0.023622047244094488}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7319148936170213, 'agreement': 0.44961240310077516, 'direct_attack': 0.18750000000000003, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18543046357615892, 'partial': 0.04477611940298508}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5505200594353641, 'recall': 0.5505200594353641, 'f1': 0.5505200594353641, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3901750064875764, 'recall': 0.32607722346549267, 'f1': 0.3198467759393881, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.514418956217738, 'recall': 0.5505200594353641, 'f1': 0.5110794444518418, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidEh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI think you are still oversimplifying it. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese are all other reasons that people go into veganism. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidIt's the same problem with war<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saideverybody's doing it and so must do it
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Option 3. 1415926 : I buy all my meat from local farms that I know have free-range chickens and cows that are grass-fed and well-treated until they are humanely slaughtered, and  once the technology exists to 3D-print a chicken breast that tastes about as good as the real thing at an affordable price with 0 animal death, I eat that instead.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally don't see any distinction between my pet dog and a chicken.  [NEWLINE] IfI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet, I would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment.  [NEWLINE]  Probably not even a bolt to the brain either.  [NEWLINE]  I agree that synthetic meat would be absolutely amazing though!  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I do see a distinction between a pet and livestock, namely thatwe domesticated those pet animals for the purpose of companionship ( and in the case of the dog, a symbiotic relationship involving feeding them scraps for protection against predators that their scent can pick up easier than our sight, particularly at night ), and have bonded with them specifically because their utility functions are greater as companions than as meat. [NEWLINE] Chickens simply aren't.  [NEWLINE] Also, again, local farms and humane slaughtering, not factory farming.  [NEWLINE] As far as I'm aware, chickens at my local farm have their brains destroyed at the stem as quickly as possible while their head is chopped off.  [NEWLINE] Gory, but painless, as the pain center is instantly destroyed.  [NEWLINE] And I wouldn't want to witness it, but I would accept that as a humane death ( as humane as we can make death, anyway ), as it has as little pain as we can deliver.  [NEWLINE] Admittedly, a better way would be a proper Brompton Cocktail, but that would taint meat, and so is unfeasible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Finally, here is the big problem I have : It is literally impossible for me to live without other things dying.  [NEWLINE] I wish it weren't so, but it is. [NEWLINE] Carrots get eaten or boiled alive and we have no evidence that suggests, one way or another, if that is causing them suffering, as their nervous system is sufficiently different from us that I believe we wouldn't know what we were looking for. [NEWLINE] However, there are plants that emit pheromones to alert other plants of an impending insect-predator's presence and causes other plants in the area of the same type to activate defenses, and other plants that will actively tense up in response to needle pricks ( which, further, will stop responding when exposed to typical anasthetics ), which tells me that when plants behave in an animal-like manner, they can and do respond to some sort of pain stimuli.  [NEWLINE] So, I don't consider plants to be necessarily more moral.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Further, I find death by human to be more humane than death by any other cause that most game or livestock animals could hope for. [NEWLINE] At the best, chickens, pigs, deer, and cows would have their throats ripped out by weasels or wolves or whatever other predator.  [NEWLINE] At bestthey'd die slowly and painfully of some disease that they have no hope of overcoming, or slowly and painfully of starvation after breaking a leg and falling behind their herd. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Nature is not pretty, and we should be working to improve it. [NEWLINE]  I work best when I've had more to eat than a salad, so in the long run,  future animals benefit more by my consumption of meat than they would if I was trying to go vegetarian/vegan. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I may have a different stance on seeing no difference between companion animals and farm animals becausemany of my pets are exotic and farm animals. [NEWLINE] The fact we have domesticated some animals also  does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins.  [NEWLINE]  Are you seriously saying you consider slaughtering an animal morally equal to harvesting a crop?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a day, I eat maybe 1/3 of a cow or 1/2 of a chicken if I'm hungry [NEWLINE] If I were eating veggies, I'd consume several plants. [NEWLINE] I consider my 1 chicken/2 days to be morally equivalent to the 8 heads of lettuce/day it would take me to get the same basic caloric intake ( note : I don't have any real accuracy for the amount per day, just a rough guesstimation ) to be about morally equal.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The fact we have domesticated some animals also does not mean they suffer any differently to their wild cousins. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] On the contrary : A sheep with a shepherd is many times less likely to have its throat ripped out by a wolf and having its last experience on earth be something as gruesome as the beginnings of being eaten.  [NEWLINE] A bolt to the brain sounds bad, but there is nothing past that instant. [NEWLINE] No pain, no awareness, just cessation of life. [NEWLINE] Ditto that for every other domestic food animal, and even animals that we hunt for food : at the very least we are less vicious than other predators in that we wait until the animal is definitely dead before we start eating it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not arguing that death at the hands of humans is better than living on ; in the general sense,  living on is better than just about any death ;  I'm arguing that of the potential ways to die, being killed is the best an animal can realistically hope for. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI would never consider his throat being sliced by a machine as he hung upside down as humane treatment. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI had to take my cat to be euthanised at the vet
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOn boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat about the unemployed? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey don't pay income tax so they don't contribute
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I feel terrible for the animals
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidGood meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 18---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHire an expensive private tutor instead. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople have different goals<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAnother thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What about people who think an invisible man in the sky inpregnated a virgin 2, 000 years ago with himself and can see and hear every person on earth, including their thoughts and judges whether or not you will burn for eternity even though he knows what you are going to do before you do?  [NEWLINE]  Don't they need locking up in padded cells too?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The difference is that Christians believing a man came down and impregnated a woman does not have a significant affect on their day-to-day lives and social interactions.  [NEWLINE]  They don't live entirely in this delusion.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yes it does,  Yes they do!  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ),  but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  What about teachers?  [NEWLINE]  Scientists?  [NEWLINE]  Doctors?  [NEWLINE]  Farmers?  [NEWLINE]  There are plenty of professions that do great things for society, but  people aren't going around thanking them with discounts.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  In that case, what makes soldiers more worthy than others?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't believe I ever argued that they were.  Your premise is that these professions " do more good " than soldiers, and  I'm asking why you don't want to extend the benefits to other critical pillars of our society.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've since changed my view. Since you made the same argument that changed it, have a delta : Δ. I've edited my post to show my new view more accurately. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSome might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.65, 'agreement': 0.4551282051282051, 'direct_attack': 0.14285714285714285, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2236842105263158, 'partial': 0.3333333333333333}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8421052631578947, 'agreement': 0.36787564766839376, 'direct_attack': 0.07317073170731707, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20987654320987653, 'partial': 0.03937007874015748}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7336860670194004, 'agreement': 0.4068767908309456, 'direct_attack': 0.0967741935483871, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21656050955414013, 'partial': 0.07042253521126761}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5520059435364042, 'recall': 0.5520059435364042, 'f1': 0.5520059435364042, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3610005783689994, 'recall': 0.3064796528967279, 'f1': 0.30486401923282813, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.49452551827620256, 'recall': 0.5520059435364042, 'f1': 0.5038025903549789, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then wouldn't a complement be just an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put into something that most people see as hard or worthwhile?  [NEWLINE] This implies the complement is meaningful.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Most people don't do this - either  they don't put the time and effort into something generally hard or worthwhile or  the time and effort isn't hard or worthwhile. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] When I receive a compliment I should publicly recognize that then, right?  [NEWLINE]  No only am I accepting their compliment,  I'm showing some of what I truly believe.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That counts as a [DELTA]! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSo then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost people don't do this
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAssuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidC and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAnd then their descendants will die, on and on and on
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidJust 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidSomeone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidyou don't put in much effort<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIn college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said They're just prioritizing their mental resources. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidyou bought an RPG! <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 19---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidsome people are willing to be forgiving. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidNo they should not. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMilitary personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the number of them isn't the question - the severity is. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's important to workout your whole body
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Nearly every " progressive " ideal was, at one point, considered an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes  but  I think at this point in human history we have figured out what is an extremist ideology.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  We thought the same thing 20, 50, and 200 years ago as well  but  we're no more inherently correct than they were.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI see this as a major flaw in democracy. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidBeyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6266519823788547, 'agreement': 0.46368715083798884, 'direct_attack': 0.17346938775510204, 'undercutter_attack': 0.24427480916030533, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7678812415654521, 'agreement': 0.43005181347150256, 'direct_attack': 0.13821138211382114, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19753086419753085, 'partial': 0.07086614173228346}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6901152213462706, 'agreement': 0.44623655913978494, 'direct_attack': 0.15384615384615385, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21843003412969283, 'partial': 0.11464968152866242}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5274888558692422, 'recall': 0.5274888558692422, 'f1': 0.5274888558692422, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3616166660264502, 'recall': 0.32090828861611803, 'f1': 0.3246555299981129, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.48502971235684267, 'recall': 0.5274888558692422, 'f1': 0.4950730214991027, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI feel the same way about animals in medical research. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSlaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOnce ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthese are all other reasons that people go into veganism. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 20---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWith a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ). 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidShow off your wealth by hiring a butler instead. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I don't know man, raising a child is hard.  You are leaving out so many factors.  [NEWLINE]  - What about a one parent household?  [NEWLINE]  - What is the state of the school?  [NEWLINE]  Is this an unfunded, understaffed, inner city school?  [NEWLINE]  - What if the child is being bullied/abused without the parents knowledge?  [NEWLINE]  -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )?  [NEWLINE]  On top of all of that what about the child that does well despite a parents shittiness?  [NEWLINE]  Do those parents receive your proposed monetary incentive?  [NEWLINE]  I think the correlation is there, but to say 100% is too much of an absolute.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What about a one parent household? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  So what? Again, many children come from handicapped households.  [NEWLINE]  Why do some individuals call them excuses and others, motivation?  [NEWLINE]  Really most of your problems you presented can be counteracted  and  even turned for benefit with a proper level of parental involvement.  [NEWLINE]  I subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as too much parenting.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, with more involvement comes more responsibility to surgically manage involvement, emotions, rewards and punishments.  [NEWLINE]  The last point about a shitty parent with a good student is, at first, a quandary.  [NEWLINE]  After building in requirements for parents to attend a weekly P/T meeting and/or more,  I think we could minimize the amount of shitty parents getting paid,  and  instead deposit that money into a trust for the student, paid upon graduation.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said You are leaving out so many factors. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said -Does this child have other, non LD problems ( i. e. emotional, gender-identity )? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world and he devotes a substantial portion of his wealth to philanthropy.  [NEWLINE]  He is not alone in this.  [NEWLINE]  While there are rich assholes, many wealthy people use their money to try to improve the world.  [NEWLINE] What makes you think these same people will turn around and start slaughtering everyone as soon as automation improves? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  If there are more non-asshole rich, why isn't there a global push for better worker protection, and investment, instead of the complete opposite?  [NEWLINE]  The rich are all hoarding money on the Cayman Islands and don't care about anything that keeping it for themselves and their dynasties.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAnd it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMaking an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Something like this will take decades or centuries and won't be applied evenly across the entire planet.  [NEWLINE]  I don't see how it's possible society couldn't adapt as the inevitability of a laborless civilization grows.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you sure? [NEWLINE]  Economic bubbles historically popped in a matter of months.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I have trouble equating a financial bubble with the entire world economy.  [NEWLINE] There are what, 5 thousand publicly traded US companies? [NEWLINE]  Yes, if they all went belly up we would have a problem but  someone would pick up the slack.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.7026143790849673, 'agreement': 0.4540540540540541, 'direct_attack': 0.12962962962962962, 'undercutter_attack': 0.17391304347826086, 'partial': 0.18461538461538463}, 'recall': {'support': 0.5802968960863698, 'agreement': 0.43523316062176165, 'direct_attack': 0.17073170731707318, 'undercutter_attack': 0.345679012345679, 'partial': 0.09448818897637795}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6356245380635624, 'agreement': 0.4444444444444445, 'direct_attack': 0.14736842105263157, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23140495867768596, 'partial': 0.125}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.44799405646359586, 'recall': 0.44799405646359586, 'f1': 0.44799405646359586, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3289652981724593, 'recall': 0.3252857930694523, 'f1': 0.3167684724476649, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5021056453703341, 'recall': 0.44799405646359586, 'f1': 0.46676410072669866, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess I look at it this way-there have absolutely been times when gun ownership, or carrying weapons on ones person in general was more prevalent than it is today.  [NEWLINE] Those time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Consider the " wild west. " [NEWLINE] Obviously it wasn't nearly as full of gun battles as the movies make it seem, but according [this study] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] the murder rate was " extraordinarily high by today's standard. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Looking at the rest of the thread, I think I see what might be a flaw in our collective logic.  [NEWLINE] The incidents that stand out most in our heads are events like Paris or Aurora or Columbine- premeditated shootings with the intent of inflicting a lot of casualties.  [NEWLINE] If the staff at Charlie Hebdo or Columbine High had guns, they certainly might have been able to end these incidents earlier.  [NEWLINE] They also might have inflicted more casualties with stray bullets.  [NEWLINE] These types of hypothetical calculations aren't really helpful, in my opinion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But lets assume that more guns makes mass shootings less likely. [NEWLINE] Would this actually make a more heavily armed society a more polite one? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I don't think it would, because though premeditated murders could well be less likely, accidental deaths, unplanned homicides, and suicides would like increase.  [NEWLINE] This study found that owning a gun makes one more likely to die from suicide * and * homicide.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's correlation, so there might be some third factor at play that makes gun owners more likely to b targets of crime or clinically depressed, but  it certainly suggests that owning a gun doesn't automatically make you safer.  [NEWLINE] [URL]. full [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whether or not more guns would prevent events like today's isn't the issue ( though I am inclined to say they wouldn't necessarily do that ), it seems like  a greater proliferation of weapons would be more dangerous for a number of other reasons.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] YeahI was considering this and was already doubtful of the benefits would outweigh the potential negatives.  [NEWLINE] I'm sure with the right culture it would, but maintaining a culture is hard.  [NEWLINE] Like I said the role of these people would be to defend themselves and those around them.  [NEWLINE] It wouldn't help deterring suicide attacks, and would most probably cause few more deaths from mistakes and irresponsibility, with a danger of this worsening.  [NEWLINE] In cases of mass shootings like you outlined, which are the situations I am thinking of, it would perhaps be best that these people wouldn't be armed with a gun but a paralyzer ( taser ),  so when they find a safe hiding place or cover they have a chance getting themselves in a position where they can use the paralyzer on the attacker.  [NEWLINE]  This would have most of the benefits as with what I imagined with guns except it might be less probable to work against well prepared attackers ( against heavy clothing ),  but on the other hand  it could also deter from suicide attacks as they usually count on not being caught alive and of course it always is best for the attacker to be brought to justice in court.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Although you haven't suggested this, your post lead my thoughts to it, so have a delta for that : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : Re the study, well of course it doesn't suggest that. [NEWLINE] These studies seem to fuel only the flawed arguments based on correlation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThose time periods/places did not enjoy lower rates of violent death. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAfter that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidShould young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMeat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmath was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The problem is, this is really the main reason not to do it.  [NEWLINE] How do you prevent people from having more than the allotted number of children?  [NEWLINE] Forced sterilization?  [NEWLINE] Forced abortions?  [NEWLINE] Prison?  [NEWLINE] Fines?  [NEWLINE]  Taking away the children?  [NEWLINE]  All of these are terrible options, and there aren't any good ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Right but thats not really what I'm trying to argue... Let me be more clear : I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis is really the main reason not to do it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPrison? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm not proposing we implement it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIn a perfect world, sure. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 21---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Praxagora : I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common ; there will no longer be either rich or poor ; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. [NEWLINE] Blepyrus : But who will till the soil? [NEWLINE] Praxagora : The~~slaves~~ robots of course. " [NEWLINE] ―Aristophanes [NEWLINE] Automation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life.  [NEWLINE]  Just like the Industrial revolution forced feudal and mercantile agriculturalist societies to become capitalist ones,  the Automation revolution will force capitalist economies to become socialist ones.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] On one hand the trend if confirmed would be consistent with Karl Marx's prediction.  [NEWLINE]  On the other hand I work with Free Software on a daily basis but  it seems more capitalist than anything.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAutomation is a slow process that will take decades, and end up revolutionizing our economic structure and way of life. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said~~slaves~~ robots
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saida handful of people make the world a much nastier place
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidmy view : That may be true in some cases<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidother than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities ; IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent ( s ).  [NEWLINE] A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  [NEWLINE] I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  (  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I think parents are virtually 100% responsible for producing scholastically successful children. [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One of the largest predictors for success appears to be not being poor.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How would you account for that? [NEWLINE]  It seems like fining poor people has some potential negative effects... on the children.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] It wouldn't be a fine, since it would only be a suspension of " assistance " anyway. [NEWLINE] And poverty is a formidable obstacle but many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful.  [NEWLINE]  That cannot be a blanket excuse for poor academic performance.  [NEWLINE]  I believe the fulcrum of a child's development has always been, and will always be the parent ( a living, mentally capable set of or just one parent ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that don't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( e. g. they don't have time because they are having to work 2 jobs just to support the children ), it's not going to solve the problem.  [NEWLINE] And that's going to be very expensive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, there's a more fundamental * reason * that poor parents are poorer at helping their children... they're statistically dumber than richer people. [NEWLINE] Ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But honestly, I think you're just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence. [NEWLINE]  There's really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school. [NEWLINE]  A simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : tried to award you the delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Native intelligence is the challenge.  [NEWLINE] I won't delve into how this has infected my view, but I will say that it ties into why I think  a moneyless society would over time revert to fiat currency. [NEWLINE]  Some people can do some thing's better than others... thanks. [NEWLINE]  Nice exercise. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : there we go! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidUnless you make the reward high enough to overcome the * reasons * that poor parents are less involved ( <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said ), it's not going to solve the problem. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6497975708502024, 'agreement': 0.5057471264367817, 'direct_attack': 0.3023255813953488, 'undercutter_attack': 0.34210526315789475, 'partial': 0.16923076923076924}, 'recall': {'support': 0.8663967611336032, 'agreement': 0.45595854922279794, 'direct_attack': 0.10569105691056911, 'undercutter_attack': 0.16049382716049382, 'partial': 0.08661417322834646}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7426257952573742, 'agreement': 0.4795640326975477, 'direct_attack': 0.1566265060240964, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2184873949579832, 'partial': 0.11458333333333333}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5794947994056464, 'recall': 0.5794947994056464, 'f1': 0.5794947994056464, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3938412622141994, 'recall': 0.3350308735311621, 'f1': 0.34237741245406694, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5150138203847053, 'recall': 0.5794947994056464, 'f1': 0.5290146167561898, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What about Option 4 : You hate animals and you want to see them killed.  [NEWLINE]  View. Changed.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Shall we rule out sociopathy/psychopathy?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Hmm maybe if it makes it easier for you. [NEWLINE] Although  I can imagine someone that has empathy for humans but none for other animals.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good point, although I regard that as speciesism.  [NEWLINE] I do have a Christian friend who is extremely charitable. [NEWLINE] She's a carer, a foster mother and a complete romantic who writes novels about angels.  [NEWLINE] She's obviously an all-round good and kind person, but she eats meat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I rationalise this by realising that helping people is her passion, and  perhaps her religion justifies a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals. [NEWLINE]  Doesn't the Bible claim something along the lines of that animals were created for the enjoyment of humans ( I haven't read it myself )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist.  [NEWLINE] I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with * each other *, andyou're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow?  [NEWLINE] It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To address your last question, yes, the bible states that all animals were put on earth by God to serve man. [NEWLINE] There were rules against eating certain kinds, but overall the idea was that humans have dominion over all. [NEWLINE] In which case,  there is no cognitive dissonance, but  this would probably fall under your 2nd line of reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think it's fairly normal to be a speciesist. I want to make note that I'm not trying to argue from a point of naturalism in regards to what ought to be done, but that it shouldn't be that surprising when we encounter people that are that way. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, speciesism is indeed the norm and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. [NEWLINE] I asked this question so as to keep myself grounded in what other justifications my loved ones around me didn't have the same epiphany I did ( as it may not necessary be the same reasons I had for not going vegan sooner ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I mean hell, it's hard enough for many people to empathize with each other, and you're asking them to try to put themselves in the hooves of a cow? It's just beyond the scope for many people unless they seriously put the time in to think about it, and they've got their own lives to worry about. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A very good reminder, thank you. [NEWLINE] Not everyone is as obsessed with philosophy, psychology and nature as I am,  just as I don't concern myself with keeping extremely up to date on world politics and Amnesty International petitions.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still class it as option 3 though : P [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said View. Changed. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE]  So what do you do when you discover [the suffering animals endure in the vegetarian food industry? ] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ahh I've seen that article before and it's incredibly flawed.  [NEWLINE] It boggles my mind it was even published in all honesty.  [NEWLINE] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right?  [NEWLINE] So if you're really concerned with the damage done by the land use of growing food, then  not eating meat would be a great first step to reducing it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  The land required to feed one vegan for a single year is 1/6th of an acre and the land required to feed one meat eater for a year is 18 times more than that.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [Here's a cool infographic I found this morning] ( [URL] / ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Livestock animals eat a hell of a lot more crops humans do right? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all crops are created equal.  [NEWLINE] How much grass do you eat on an average day?  [NEWLINE]  No mice are slowly poisoned to death growing grass, they are for the crops that humans eat.  [NEWLINE]  Why, it's almost like you only read the top two paragraphs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn.  [NEWLINE] More corn is produced for livestock than humans.  [NEWLINE]  36% of all privately held acres in the US is used for growing corn just for livestock.  [NEWLINE]  That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Once again, read the article closely. [NEWLINE] It's written by an Australian ( where most livestock is grass-fed ), and  explicitly notes that it only applies when livestock is fed on grass rather than grain. [NEWLINE]  The fact that the US uses a poor method of production is not an indictment of the meat industry as a whole.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI read it a month or so ago I'm actually referring to corn. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said That's without even getting into the massive amounts of land used for soy and hay production for livestock. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidold people shouldn't be in politics<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said they don't understand what the circumstances of today are
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  The fact I don't fear an Amish flying a plane into my office tower or a Jain blowing up my bus makes me doubt that religions have no inherent features that influence people's actions.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  The Amish and the Vedic religions in general haven't been demonized to the same extent as Muslims have.  [NEWLINE]  I'm far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim, but  that doesn't mean I should fear Christians.  [NEWLINE]  So, if you're measuring by fear people feel, you're more likely to find the source of that in the mainstream media than you will in religion.  [NEWLINE]  Look at how scared everyone got over Ebola, a non issue for most westerners.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am just expressing that I find current islam a religion I mistrust.  [NEWLINE] I am not saying everyone should mistrust them or that I should change my behaviour in any way, butislam has some toxic components christianity no longer has. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] far morel likely in general to be killed by a Christian than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This has nothing to do with the religion but by what we are surrounded by.  [NEWLINE]  I probably am more likely to be killed by a muslim than a christian * because of their religion *.  Although the odds have little to do regarding trust or feelings. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim.  [NEWLINE] It's an issue of rate, and at that point, I'd like to see stats. [NEWLINE]  I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components.  [NEWLINE]  What particular aspects do you find toxic?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] That is due to statistics, not to scripture or religious property.  [NEWLINE] you are more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by a christian, this doesn't say anything about christianity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not going to take an emotional appeal when considering whether or not a religion has dangerous components. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Emotional? [NEWLINE]  I am just looking at the outcome of people following the religion.  [NEWLINE] Facts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What particular aspects do you find toxic? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  The fanatism and radical actions it allows and encourages.  [NEWLINE] Do you want quran quotes or something? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Your surrounded by enough Christians you're still probably more likely to be killed by a Christian for religious reasons than a Muslim. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthis doesn't say anything about christianity
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(19, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSeriously, immunity is great
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I feel skill is largely determined by experience. Compliments on skill are almost meaningless. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In high school, I thought I was " good at math " as I'm the son of a math teacher and electrical engineer. [NEWLINE] In college, I learned that math was not something you're " good at " but something you have to put hard work into and is almost the sole determiner in the level of skill you obtain. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So then isn't almost any compliment almost to be expected? I've spent a lot of time with similar problems -- how could I not know all the details and little tricks of these problems?  [NEWLINE] I feel a compliment recognizes something given : I feel everyone is passionate about something, whether it be math or psychology or medicine (  I don't hear " you're so good at biology "  but  I think I should ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree. If you're really good at something, especially in college,  you'll find you don't put in much effort. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Look around at classes.  You'll see a group of people who study all day to get those good grades, and those that get them without cracking open the book.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] In college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject.  [NEWLINE] I recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in.  [NEWLINE] I put in serious work for this class, more work than any other class.  [NEWLINE] I enjoyed it ; how could I not?  [NEWLINE] I feel I learned much more from this work and my grade was a result of this work.  [NEWLINE] I have some more backing behind that ;  I took other classes I enjoyed but did not put in serious hours and didn't learn what I should (  correspondingly I received a * good * but not * great * grade ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So in the first case, it's hard to say whether you were truly good at the topic and just put in the time because you liked it, or if you needed the time.  [NEWLINE] I never put in extra time on classes.  [NEWLINE] The example of my theory was best evident in my CS classes : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A good portion of the class did well on assignments an tests.  [NEWLINE] Me and my friend did very well also.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The difference was,  the majority of the class put in lots of time for assignments, prep, reading, and studying.  [NEWLINE] The two of us? [NEWLINE]  We didn't even buy the books, much less read them.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIn college, I tend to find students who enjoy the subject. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI recently took a class I enjoy, DSP. I had done previous DSP work for a couple semesters and had much more experience than almost everyone in class but I still put serious work in. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidImagine the time before you were born
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Many high school graduates are complete morons.  [NEWLINE]  I legal system that they could understand would be archaic.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] MEMORIZE.  [NEWLINE]  Not UNDERSTAND.  [NEWLINE]  The point is to limit the LENGTH OF THE DOCUMENT and the VAGUENESS OF ITS BOUNDARIES.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 22---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ). <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah. [NEWLINE] How many tons of food, water, and blankets did firefighters haul into the Sandy disaster zone?  [NEWLINE] Way less than my folk.  [NEWLINE] Does that make us public servants?  [NEWLINE]  Nope.  [NEWLINE]  We all just do our jobs.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are you a trucker? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yep. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Nope. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWay less than my folk. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(8, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How would you even get rid of networking.  [NEWLINE] I meanpeople talk.  [NEWLINE] People socialize.  [NEWLINE] I mean  lots of people know of jobs because of contact from friends.  [NEWLINE]  Your view sounds great, but do you have any idea how you would implement it? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The same way ethical business and hiring practices are enforced - make a rule, punish those who violate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If a company wants to hire based solely on merit, have some oversight to make sure networking is not affecting that process. [NEWLINE] If a society does, make laws regarding such. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Punish people for simply talking about their work? [NEWLINE] Because I would imagine if one friend tells another friend that there is a job opening that would be against the law per your view. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAlthough I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Progress in automation will eventually lead to a full fledge genocide on the majority of the population. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [47% of all jobs are at risk of being automated] ( [URL] ).  [NEWLINE] This number will grow grow until the vast majority of people become obsolete for jobs.  [NEWLINE] Since some of this automation will inevitably come to weapons, the wealthy will have the perfect opportunity to commit genocide on the 99%.  [NEWLINE] By fortifying themselves in their gated communities with rows upon rows of automated defences, all unburdened by humans with consciences and families, they can simply wait for everyone to starve or get killed while they bask in their machine generated wealth.  [NEWLINE] Once everyone is dead, they can simply be wiped from history.  [NEWLINE] You, me, everyone will have never existed.  [NEWLINE]  A crime completely erased.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [I am not the only one to predict this outcome] ( [URL] / ) ( see the last section on " exterminism " ). I don't think the other more optimistic futures expressed in that article will come to pass given current mentalities. [NEWLINE] I think it's also too late to stop it. [NEWLINE] Those who will fight it will lose. [NEWLINE] Please CMV so I can have hope again. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You remember that old phrase from Forest Gump, " a man only needs so much money, the rest is just for showing off. " [NEWLINE] Well that's actually quite true. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Throughout history, people tend to use their wealth to show off how much wealth they have.  [NEWLINE] The status symbols change over time, but the existence of status symbols doesn't.  [NEWLINE] There was a time, say in the 18th century, where the elite would wear quite elaborate clothing.  [NEWLINE] Check out this picture of [Louis XIV] ( [URL] %20Pages/France/France_History/Images/Louis-XIV-BAR800. jpg ).  [NEWLINE] He's dressing in elaborate, fantastical clothing to tell everyone, " look how rich and powerful I am.  [NEWLINE] I can afford to waste resources on immense amounts of expensive fabric. "  [NEWLINE] Nowadays, you would never see a wealthy leader dressing like this.  [NEWLINE] Clothes have become cheap, thus they are no longer useful as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] Certain elite brands are used to show off wealth, but the suit the president wears is little different in form than the suit you can buy down at Walmart.  [NEWLINE] His suit is just higher quality and better fitted.  [NEWLINE] Or consider beauty standards.  [NEWLINE] Back during the Victorian Era, it was very fashionable for women of class to have extremely pale skin.  [NEWLINE] When most of the populace lived on farms or walked to work in a factory, most people got tan quite easily.  [NEWLINE] Only the rich could afford to be pale.  [NEWLINE]  Nowadays, where most people work office jobs, retail jobs, food service, etc, tanning is a luxury good, a sign you have enough spare time to sit in the sun or money to go to a tanning salon.  [NEWLINE] So, what would the luxury goods be for a post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] In such a society, the cost of most physical goods would approach zero.  [NEWLINE] Raw materials would be extracted by robots.  [NEWLINE] Energy would come from cheap robot-produced solar farms.  [NEWLINE] Robots would assemble and repair other robots.  [NEWLINE] The cost of most physical goods, in a true post-scarcity society, is near zero.  [NEWLINE] Sure, a common laborer could buy a thousand copies of a 2015 Lexus, but what's the point?  [NEWLINE] Even someone working at Burger King could afford to put together a copy of Louis XIV's outfit, but no one ever does.  [NEWLINE] It's just seen as silly and ridiculous, possibly even a sign of mental illness.  [NEWLINE] So, what would rich people spend their money on?  [NEWLINE] What are the status goods of post-scarcity society?  [NEWLINE] Well, real estate could certainly be one.  [NEWLINE] The cost to build a house may be zero, but land certainly isn't.  [NEWLINE] Still, this can be ameliorated by high-rises.  [NEWLINE] Lots of people can afford to live in a ritzy downtown area if a high-quality high rise can be built to next for nothing.  [NEWLINE] Owning a single-family home in a high-quality area would be a status symbol, but just living their wouldn't.  [NEWLINE] So, without that, what do we have?  [NEWLINE] About the only thing you can buy with your money at that point is human-intensive services.  [NEWLINE] Sure, you * could * use a robot to clean your house, but do you want people to think you are poor?  [NEWLINE] Show off your wealth by hiring a butler instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * put your kid through a MOOC to teach them algebra, but you're better than that.  [NEWLINE] Hire an expensive private tutor instead.  [NEWLINE] You * could * have a robot do your hair or nails, but really?  [NEWLINE] What are you, a common peasant?  [NEWLINE] Pay for the fancy salon instead and show off your fabulous wealth.  [NEWLINE]  You * could * use a driverless car, but having someone drive you around is just so much more classy.  [NEWLINE]  In short, in a world where the cost of physical goods is near zero, the only way to show off your wealth is to hire a bunch of people as a status symbol.  [NEWLINE] So, what does retain [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So instead of genocide we simply go back to feudalism.  [NEWLINE] I can't say this is a perfect outcome but I guess it's both better than death and it's something I can see happening. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidYou, me, everyone will have never existed. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhat are the status goods of post-scarcity society? 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Well, first off, there'sthe fact that most people aren't interested in romance with family members of the opposite sex, but I figure you're excluding that. [NEWLINE] So, here's what I've experienced as a 19-year-old male college student. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A lot of the times, yes, women and men do interact in a romantic way, one trying to impress the other to get involved in romance. [NEWLINE] It happens. [NEWLINE] There are a lot of great, good-looking people out there.  [NEWLINE] Jeez, my college is known for being the land of partying, gorgeous college people.  [NEWLINE] But romance just isn't as cut and dry as that.  [NEWLINE] The one thing I've learned about life and romance going through high school and college? There is no manual.  [NEWLINE] None.  [NEWLINE] And we try to define all of these interactions between the sexes as one thing or another because it's easy.  [NEWLINE] But it really isn't.  [NEWLINE] I can think a girl is absolutely gorgeous and still be friends with them, mostly because I don't think she's the one for me.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't devalue them, just because I don't feel like I want to keep someone exclusively to myself doesn't mean I care for them any less.  [NEWLINE] And just trying to be romantic with women, assuming the endgoal of any compatible people is romance, completely cuts out some of the most beautiful times you can have with people.  [NEWLINE] I've taught a friend how to drive, letting her find a passion in a shitty life. [NEWLINE] I've spent countless all-nighters with a friend just shooting shit, due to insomnia and boredom.  [NEWLINE] I've held a friend so close after she told me I was the biggest reason she hadn't killed herself.  [NEWLINE] I've watched stars fall on a hilltop so clear and beautiful as I called a friend a sister for the first time.  [NEWLINE] So many interactions.  [NEWLINE] So many beautiful, hard, wonderful, life-changing experiences I've had because of friendships with women.  [NEWLINE] And it's no harder than being a friend with a guy, because we seem to forget so many times that women are people too, they are sad, happy, lonely and joyful at times, just like us.  [NEWLINE] So stop thinking about how it's supposed to be done and just let things go on. [NEWLINE] If you want to be exclusive with a girl, go for it. [NEWLINE] But sometimes? [NEWLINE]  Sometimes you love a person without needing to hold them close to you.  [NEWLINE]  Experience that, I beg you.  [NEWLINE] Something as simple and beautiful as all that should never, ever be left unexperienced. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This is a great way to look at it. I come from this all-boy's school background, and I can't shake the feeling of loss when a male friend of mine gets together with a female friend. [NEWLINE] I feel like I'm impinging on their relationship whenever I try to interact with the girl because I'm afraid that my male friend will think that there's some ulterior motive involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What all of you seem to be telling me so far is that the highest form of relationship doesn't have to be romantic, yet for some reason I wonder how you've make such good friends and been able to keep it fully platonic with all of them.  [NEWLINE] I hope that's not a bad thing to wonder-- I just thought that if you get that close with someone, they might be for you.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to challenge your view that networking is unfair, because it totally is.  [NEWLINE] But I am going to challenge your view that it should be discouraged or eliminated.  [NEWLINE]  Businesses are and should be designed to be effective.  [NEWLINE] Being fair is, at best, a secondary goal.  [NEWLINE] Any company/society which encourages business practices that are not effective will quickly be out-competed by one that is effective, and having effective businesses in a society in general improves the quality of life of the people living there.  [NEWLINE] There are some exceptions, that justify regulation, such as environmental or fraud protection,  but I don't think networking is one of them,  the reason being just how expensive it is to find employees without using networking. [NEWLINE] Simply getting an employee in the door often costs about 1 years worth of their salary, with that money going to the recruiters that found the person, paying people to review their resume, interview them, do background checks, etc.  [NEWLINE] Then, after they start working, they have to be trained, and get up to speed on their new job, which ( depending on the job ) can often take months.  [NEWLINE]  If all of this time and money goes towards a bad hire, that is an extremely bad thing for the business, which means that it's extremely important to minimize the number of bad hires.  [NEWLINE]  The best way to do that is to hire people you've worked with before, and you know are good, or people your colleagues and friends have worked with before, who you trust when they say that someone is good.  [NEWLINE]  Interviews are an extremely poor replacement actually working with someone, or for the opinion of a trusted colleague.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Totally valid game theory, and well-articulated!  [NEWLINE] But I've got too much liberal in me to give up the cause of egalitarianism for the sake of financial stability. [NEWLINE] Compelling, though, have a delta. [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6524317912218268, 'agreement': 0.42168674698795183, 'direct_attack': 0.18681318681318682, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23417721518987342, 'partial': 0.13450292397660818}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7422402159244265, 'agreement': 0.18134715025906736, 'direct_attack': 0.13821138211382114, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22839506172839505, 'partial': 0.18110236220472442}, 'f1': {'support': 0.6944444444444444, 'agreement': 0.2536231884057971, 'direct_attack': 0.15887850467289721, 'undercutter_attack': 0.23124999999999998, 'partial': 0.15436241610738255}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.4918276374442793, 'recall': 0.4918276374442793, 'f1': 0.4918276374442793, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3259223728378894, 'recall': 0.2942592344460869, 'f1': 0.2985117107261043, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4775884856224807, 'recall': 0.4918276374442793, 'f1': 0.4755878095215871, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThis Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidchildren are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthat's where supply and demand are involved<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis value may not be the price being charged for the thing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidYou said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis is the problem with X-factors and complexity
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFor example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBecause that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit seriously strains credulity to begin with
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think is flawed<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAt this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthough I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think this isn't ALWAYS true.  [NEWLINE] Some people aren't changed by others that easily.  [NEWLINE] And  I think your argument applies only to boards like /b/ or /pol/. [NEWLINE]  If you go on 4chan right now to the /wg/ board ( wallpapers ) or the /vr/ board, almost everyone there is nice. [NEWLINE] They are the boards to people with dedication and interests, though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think those boards are bit more niche and have less users.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But I get your point,  in my experience /vg/ has been pretty good since people in those threads generally like the games they're talking about and not just wildly pissing about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI think this isn't ALWAYS true. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSome people aren't changed by others that easily. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 23---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthey are extremely overhyped<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidHowever, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidPeople thought the exact same thing before WWI. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYour first paragraph is intriguing
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6710059171597633, 'agreement': 0.42105263157894735, 'direct_attack': 0.21, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18292682926829268, 'partial': 0.6666666666666666}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7651821862348178, 'agreement': 0.3316062176165803, 'direct_attack': 0.17073170731707318, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2777777777777778, 'partial': 0.015748031496062992}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7150063051702397, 'agreement': 0.37101449275362314, 'direct_attack': 0.1883408071748879, 'undercutter_attack': 0.22058823529411764, 'partial': 0.03076923076923077}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5193164933135216, 'recall': 0.5193164933135216, 'f1': 0.5193164933135216, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.430330408934734, 'recall': 0.31220918408846243, 'f1': 0.30514381423241976, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5338851081116281, 'recall': 0.5193164933135216, 'f1': 0.4934876485441661, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saida. ) incompetent<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidSavescumming for optimal results breaks most games
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] There is a 4th choice.  [NEWLINE] You can choose to not anthropomorphize animals, and, despite how much you love your dog, realize that a chicken is just a chicken, and that your farmed tilapia doesn't have the cognition to question whether it's life is worth living.  [NEWLINE] I want the animals to be raised humanely, and, yes, I want them to be killed humanely. [NEWLINE] Butit's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys.  [NEWLINE] No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, they feel pain, but so does an earthworm, if you mean " experience messages that say 'bad things are happening - endeavor to stop them' ".  [NEWLINE] They don't look back and say, " Man, remember when I bumped into that electric fence?  [NEWLINE] That hurt like hell. "  [NEWLINE] The best they can manage is " Fence. Bad. "  [NEWLINE] There is no " meaningful " or " meaningless " life for an animal - they don't philosophize beyond needs.  [NEWLINE] Most farm animals spend less time hungry, scratched by brambles, running from predators, etc than wild animals.  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't make it a better of worse life - it's just existing.  [NEWLINE]  That's the other choice - accepting that animals are less than humans.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] a chicken is just a chicken [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] A chicken feels pain and suffering and does not want to feel those things as much as we do.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But it's not like a wild turkey sits on it's deathbed and thinks fondly of those days gone by, when it roamed free and raised its baby turkeys. No, it thinks more " food? sex? food? ". [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] My sister is severely mentally disabled and most likely doesn't have the capacity to think fondly of days gone by on her death bed either.  [NEWLINE]  Does intelligence really make much of a difference when it comes to the ethics of whether we can kill them without moral concern?  [NEWLINE]  I still don't see any good argument for how animals are 'less' than humans ( beyond our own obvious bias ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : formatting [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] How does a chicken " want " anything?  [NEWLINE] It is completely incapable of developing a though like, " Today would REALLY suck if that damn fox bites me again ".  [NEWLINE] Yes, intelligence matters.  [NEWLINE] If not, we wouldn't allow brain-dead people to be unplugged.  [NEWLINE] Self-awareness puts one in a separate category than an animal.  [NEWLINE] But, regardless,  I'm not trying to convince you not to care about animals, but that  a rational person could come to the decision that those without higher cognition or self-awareness aren't equal.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Self awareness isn't a human-exclusive trait -dolphins, apes and elephants have been proven to possess it. [NEWLINE]  Regardless of self-awareness,  the ability to suffer is what I regard as being more important to an individual.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] That may be what YOU consider, but that's not what others consider, which is why they can validly reach different conclusions.  [NEWLINE]  And " suffer " needs more definition to discuss whether it's something animals can do.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThe options are as follows<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidsociety upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  This is like saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people. "  [NEWLINE]  This might be true, but  the gun certainty played a big part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay,  but even if religion did motivate people to kill, it doesn't provide the means to kill, only the motivation.  [NEWLINE]  However, assuming that a gun provides the motivation, it also provides the tool to kill someone with.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That being said,  I'm not convinced that either motivates people to kill, and one gives the tools to kill with and the other doesn't. [NEWLINE]  This analogy falls short for me.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok.  [NEWLINE]  Without that, they wouldn't be able to kill.  [NEWLINE]  So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hm, that sounds more like the motivation though. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Religion gives them the psychological tools to justify to themselves that killing is ok. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said So while the person is ultimately responsible, like the gun, religion played a part. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I take some issue with assumption #1.  [NEWLINE] Dramatic societal changes have happened multiple times throughout history.  [NEWLINE] They are gradual and at times may seem impossible to many, but they do happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The larger issue is that you are somehow concluding that someone choosing to go vegan gives more demand to large factory farms.  [NEWLINE] You are correct that it may reduce the demand for meat from * slightly * less cruel farms, but  it also takes demand away from the larger farms. [NEWLINE]  Going vegan means fewer animals suffer on small farms and fewer animals suffer on factory farms, not that fewer animals suffer on small farms and more animals suffer on factory farms.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ethical carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ).  [NEWLINE]  The ethical carnivore just happens to * also * increase demand for responsibly-grown meat.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Someone going vegan and someone becoming an ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore reduce demand for factory-farmed meat by exactly the same amount ( 1 person ). The ~~ethical~~ * slightly less unethical * carnivore just happens to also increase demand for responsibly-grown meat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I fixed your statement. [NEWLINE] Someone who eats " happy " meat isn't helping animals.  [NEWLINE]  They are simply supporting farms that are somewhat less cruel.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Since, as you stated in your first post of this discussion, you reject my first assertion, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidA vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 24---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthere is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidtheir will always be a few bad apples
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  Cheating isn't just a single mistake though.  [NEWLINE]  It is a series of mistakes, and  each time the cheater made the " mistake, " he or she was making * a conscious knowing decision to betray his or her spouse * several times in a row by the time physical cheating happens.  [NEWLINE]  A " mistake " would be flirting back with the man or woman who flirts with you at a party while your spouse is away.  [NEWLINE]  But to reach cheating, you have to not just flirt back, but also start touching, start kissing, start hugging, get to a private location, start undressing, and * then * start having sex.  [NEWLINE]  That's no less than seven decisions one would have had to make before that person reaches sexual adultery.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe, but [now we're just haggling over the price] ( [URL] ), or the number of mistakes. [NEWLINE]  If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup.  [NEWLINE]  Yeah, these mistakes are more severe than a dishwasher starting, but  the number of them isn't the question - the severity is.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said the number of them isn't the question - the severity is. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said If a partner failed to start the dishwasher before going to bed 8 times, that doesn't mean automatic breakup. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What you're really seeming to say is that any action which garners attention is morally corrupt.  [NEWLINE] You've drawn this fine line where something that is done for attention cannot also be done for empowerment, which I find to be the crux of your dilemma.  [NEWLINE] If someone is confident in their body, is it not empowering to have other people give you reassurance of that position?  [NEWLINE] The definition of empowering is to " make ( someone ) stronger and more confident ".  [NEWLINE] If the feedback about their bodies does that, then so be it.  [NEWLINE] People seem to get very morally judgmental about how the internet has made us all so much more open.  [NEWLINE] We share so much and censor so much less... but why is this necessarily a bad thing?  [NEWLINE] If no harm is done, what problem is there in using the internet for such exchange?  [NEWLINE] Like it or not, the platforms websites have provided have made a level playing field for anyone to find some kind of minor 'celebrity', with a paparazzi of their anonymous peers.  [NEWLINE]  If the attrition of that kind of fan base is what empowers her, so be it.  [NEWLINE]  It may be complex for those in relationships who want more exclusivity, but that's more an interpersonal problem than a denial of empowerment.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I personally am against the openness that society has taken with the internet [NEWLINE].  I do not participate in most social media besides reddit, and even then I mostly lurk. [NEWLINE] Regardless, I think that this openness is not detrimental per se, but is just a display of someone's character.  [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no * problem * with anyone posting nudes, I just immediately view them differently as one seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior.  [NEWLINE] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, why is gaining a celebrity status for something like posting nudes empowering?  [NEWLINE] What about that makes someone feel good?  [NEWLINE] When I see that type of situation I see someone who knowingly is attractive, considering they have a high status, and is willing to sexually pleasure their followers via this attractiveness that they already know they have.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand that a lot of the issues I raise are personal opinions not shared by others which is why I asked in the first place. [NEWLINE] I as a person have a hard time seeing through other people's eyes if I can't justify a logical reason to do it.  [NEWLINE] I just don't see any reason in this type of behavior.  [NEWLINE] Also, I think that some of my problem is, like you said, the fine line I have drawn.  [NEWLINE]  The lines I tend to draw in life are ambiguous and hard to support which often results in a weak basis for my opinions.  [NEWLINE]  Hence, my seeking of others opinions.  [NEWLINE] Thanks for your reply. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are plenty of other ways to garner positive attention that everyone can agree is positive, instead of morally questionable behavior. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]. And yet this is just the interplay of societal values.  [NEWLINE] Let us not forget that during the Renaissance there was a huge movement for the exploration of the human form as a work of art.  [NEWLINE] Much of the surviving ancient sculptures and paintings show the nakedness of the human form, and this art compares us to heroes and gods as did much of the writing and philosophy of the time as we tried to figure out our " meaning " in the universe.  [NEWLINE] Now of course, this is a romantic view of history which takes the surviving works of outstanding people, rather than looking towards the common man...  but [NEWLINE] certainly that is a point to be made about the modern time as well.  [NEWLINE] What makes modern sexuality morally abhorrent?  [NEWLINE] What logical basis is there for the rejection of the human form and the demonizing those who are open about their sexual identity?  [NEWLINE] Slut shaming, or as you did, calling it as " whoring "?  [NEWLINE] Certainly in America there is a huge bias against such things,  but the basis of that has been our periodic pushes from the church, periods of " Great Awakening " where fundamentalists have tried to restore us to some kind of repressive god-fearing and internalized state of self loathing and cleansing for sin.  [NEWLINE] Beyond some shell of spirituality, there is no real objective reasoning to be so opposed to sex.  [NEWLINE] In fact if you look towards Europe, a lot of their media is much more lenient on sex than violence, whereas over here we're more lenient on violence than sex.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Of course no harm is done, but often this type of behavior CAN come back to haunt the original poster in a number of ways. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only ways I can think of are people trying to go back and find those pictures and use them against a person as some kind of ad-hominem attack in the public.  [NEWLINE] This again, though, goes back to a culture which seems unreasonably biased towards sex.  [NEWLINE]  There's this mystique and taboos surrounding it's open discussion which involve shaming and peer pressure, bullying and non-sense.  [NEWLINE] Why? [NEWLINE]  Even you've admitted you can't really articulate it you just feel this way because you * just do *. Which is no basis for a logical or reasonable way to think about the world.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks for your replies. I learned a lot from this thread, and specifically from your comments. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks again Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAmerican patriots have a general mentality against immigration. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ". 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(22, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism [NEWLINE]  If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I don't agree that in order for my assertion to be correct, Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity.  [NEWLINE] Can you clarify why you think that necessarily follows? [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Judaism must be comparable in terms of being widespread to Islam or Christianity [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] From your quote " Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant ". [NEWLINE]  Judiasm was developed in the Middle East and is not globally dominant by number of followers, so Judiasm is a counter-example to your statement.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said If your assertion was correct, Judiasim would be way higher than the four non Abrahamic religions above it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Listing of relgion by number of followers [URL] #Religious_demographics 1. Christianity 2. Islam 3. Hinduism 4. Buddhism 5. Shinto 6. Sikhism 7. Judaism
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  What if you are more useful as a negotiator working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict than you are as a freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE]  Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I guessI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'. [NEWLINE]  Whatever way you think you can make yourself useful.  [NEWLINE]  It can be fighting, negotiating, cooking, doctoring..  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Then I have no argument. [NEWLINE]  Your original post had a very different tone to it however.  [NEWLINE] Might want to change it from " you should be on the Ukranian border, driving back Russians ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Being able doesn't imply you are going to be helpful on that front. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI count that towards 'being on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians'
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6614173228346457, 'agreement': 0.4520547945205479, 'direct_attack': 0.2375, 'undercutter_attack': 0.1943127962085308, 'partial': 0.3}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7935222672064778, 'agreement': 0.34196891191709844, 'direct_attack': 0.15447154471544716, 'undercutter_attack': 0.25308641975308643, 'partial': 0.047244094488188976}, 'f1': {'support': 0.721472392638037, 'agreement': 0.3893805309734514, 'direct_attack': 0.187192118226601, 'undercutter_attack': 0.21983914209115282, 'partial': 0.0816326530612245}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5349182763744428, 'recall': 0.5349182763744428, 'f1': 0.5349182763744428, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3690569827127449, 'recall': 0.31805864761605973, 'f1': 0.31990336739809333, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.5023387700956317, 'recall': 0.5349182763744428, 'f1': 0.5042848468960445, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] How so? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One of the person present was under the protection of something called " service de protection des hautes personalités " ( it has been renamed since but still same goal ).  [NEWLINE] That mean that there was a policemen armed and trained specifically to protect someone in danger of being targeted.  [NEWLINE] It sadly didn't do them much good.  [NEWLINE] Unless you bring the same kind of weapons and protections as them it's akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  [NEWLINE]  Charb, one of the victim, said concerning the threats he previously received " je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux " ( I prefer to die rather than live on my knee )  and I mostly rejoin it concerning the argument you are making, the cost of constantly living in fear and packing enough fire power to fight this kind of things ( you would need to be incredibly level headed, trained and lucky to do it simply with a hand gun ) simply isn't worth it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors.  [NEWLINE]  I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police and  in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have many examples in history when it was common to walk around well armed, where those doing it were upheld as protectors. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] As protectors unless they were the one people needed protection from. [NEWLINE] Crimes rates, and especially violent crimes, were also much much higher than they are today in all of those examples.  [NEWLINE] It's not like it was an utopia where zoro or lucky luck came to solve everything with their weapon before the bad guys had a chance to do something wrong.  [NEWLINE] It's definitely not a time I want back and our supposedly incompetent and untrustworthy police are definitely a better job of enforcing the law than those protectors could ever have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You mean if everyone around me has a gun I have less to worry about? [NEWLINE] When I see how most people are driving I have absolutely no reason to believe people would be any more capable, responsible or safer with a gun so  I would have to worry about all those morons that can't be trusted with anything and about all the rest that maybe just had one of those days and simply forgot to do what they did 10 000 times before. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  At the same time rather than being afraid of getting mugged I will be afraid of getting mugged by someone pointing a gun right at my face, someone I have no reason to trust won't shot me by accident.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said I think with such people among us the public would have less of a reason to be afraid then when the only people defending them is incompetent and untrustworthy police<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said in many countries you cannot choose to arm yourself appropriately to defend yourself and others. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] First, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules? I have to askbecause it's very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer. [NEWLINE]  By far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the Auction rule ( where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder ), which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  [NEWLINE] Another common one I grew up with was the " Free Parking " rule addition, where landing on Free Parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  [NEWLINE] Assuming that you're playing with auctions ( and preferably without that Free Parking house rule ), the key to the game is negotiation.  [NEWLINE] The game only becomes a drawn-out slugfest if players can't get monopolies, which only happens if players don't negotiate. [NEWLINE] This is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game. [NEWLINE] If players A, B, C, and D are playing, and A is obviously ahead after a few go-arounds, should A just win?  [NEWLINE] Of course not!  [NEWLINE] B, C, and D should be conspiring like hell to take A down.  [NEWLINE] B can " not notice " when C and D land on his properties, making A the only one to pay rent.  [NEWLINE] C and D can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  [NEWLINE] Once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  [NEWLINE] Once monopolies ( and the corresponding houses and hotels ) come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, Monopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game : monopolies. [NEWLINE] Forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice. [NEWLINE]  A properly played game of Monopoly may come down to luck in the end,  but it's luck that is heavily influenced by the mid-game, which is decided by the players' diplomatic skill. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is a possibility of have not considered actually. [NEWLINE] Only recently ( past 4 years ) my family added money to the free parking, and though I always attempted to get the auction rule in I was always voted down. [NEWLINE]  Perhaps that is the reason why I have such a strong dislike of the game.  [NEWLINE] Alas, I have not actually played it in a while and I'll play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well. [NEWLINE]  Though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  [NEWLINE] If your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  [NEWLINE] It's like playing poker with players who never bet : it's not fun, it's just a long, awful slog. [NEWLINE] That doesn't make Poker a bad game by design ( even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ) ; it just means that it's not a game that everyone will enjoy. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  [NEWLINE] The most beneficial trade I've found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving " immunity " to that group.  [NEWLINE] ( i. e. Alice has two Yellow properties and one Green property, while Bob has two Green properties and one Yellow property. [NEWLINE] Alice agrees to trade her Green for Bob's Yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that Alice won't have to pay if she lands on a Green property and Bob won't have to pay if he lands on a Yellow property ). [NEWLINE] Players who don't like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and I find that they're more inclined to do so if they feel it won't come back to bite them. [NEWLINE] Seriously, immunity is great. [NEWLINE]  Even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be " flexible " about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  [NEWLINE]  If you can't sell auctions, this should still help.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yeah, you're right.  [NEWLINE] Perhaps my family ( and quite a few other families ) are just not equipped to play this game.  [NEWLINE]  It is probably akin to Diplomacy :  The family dynamic + the individual personalities of each player changes how the game goes. [NEWLINE] Thanks for the brilliant and well thought out answer. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMonopoly is drawn out because people don't play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthe easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many Monopoly players fail to notice
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIdeally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said that is naive
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(20, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s><s> saidCMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidVarious ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Any given aspect of the legal system should be short and simple enough that an average high school graduate could fully memorize it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON ANTICIPATED CONFUSION : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) I'm * * not * * saying simple enough that * * all * * high school students * * should * * memorize them ; I'm sayingsimple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so. [NEWLINE] Like, most people don't memorize all of Romeo and Juliet.  [NEWLINE] But most people, I think, if they really wanted to, * * could. * *  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 2. ) [NEWLINE] I'm not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison. [NEWLINE] This includes the constitution. [NEWLINE] Seriously -- this isn't what I want to argue here, but I'm 100% on board with trashing the US constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not a fan of extreme simplification, but I think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  [NEWLINE] I think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  [NEWLINE] Ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law ; the number of laws in each category ; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category's laws.  [NEWLINE]  By categories, I mean things like : criminal law ; the tax code ; any given category of regulation by profession ( medical, construction, IT, and so on ).  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the Bible ; but  it should be well within the average citizen's capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word-for-word or close to it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 9 : 55 : CLARIFICATIONS BASED ON CONFUSION THAT HAS OCCURRED : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1. ) [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand. [NEWLINE] I am not arguing that the average High School student should be able to achieve a lawyer's level of expertise in any given aspect. [NEWLINE] I'm defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 8 : 35 the following morning : Nobody last night since I went to bed made any points that I haven't already addressed more than once, so I'm done individually responding unless somebody comes up with something new. For the answers to all the posts since I went to bed : see anticipated clarifications 1 and 2, clarification based on actual confusion 1, [this comment, ] ( [URL] ) and literally the name of the subreddit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated. [NEWLINE] I don't think you'll find many people who disagree that the American legal system could be slimmed down substantially.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll make two quick points with the idea of persuading you that, while it should be simplified, a substantial degree of complexity is necessary for certain aspects to function.  [NEWLINE] First, take criminal law.  [NEWLINE] Let's assume that laws are created on the premise that they outlaw an action that is morally bad. [NEWLINE] That sounds fine and dandy at first, but who defines what is morally bad? [NEWLINE] Some things are clear cut - hitting a small child would be morally bad.  [NEWLINE] But what if hitting them prevented some greater harm? [NEWLINE] Going down this train of logic will ultimately lead to a purely utilitarian theory on the legal system. [NEWLINE] That isn't to say that it would be better or worse than our's currently, but given the immense literature on utilitarianism I doubt any high schooler could reasonably be expected to memorize it.  [NEWLINE] Second, let's look at regulation by profession, specifically bank regulation. [NEWLINE] If you haven't heard of Dodd-Frank, well, lucky you. [NEWLINE] It's a 800-odd page legislative titan. [NEWLINE] I would hardly believe it couldn't be slimmed down some, yet a lot of it is necessary for a functional judicial system to determine what is and is not legal.  [NEWLINE] Take the Volcker rule and prop. trading.  [NEWLINE] That's explicitly illegal now ( well, kind of... not yet ).  [NEWLINE] There isn't a huge moral justification to regulations such as these other than 'they increase risk and excessive risk is bad'.  [NEWLINE] But who defines what excessive risk is? [NEWLINE] If you have a probability of default of 50% is that bad? [NEWLINE] Is 15% acceptable? [NEWLINE] What about 5%? [NEWLINE] Even better, what about 4. 99999% versus 5%? [NEWLINE] Some of these things just ultimately need someone saying " Enough!  [NEWLINE] We'll agree on 5% or we will agree to disagree. " and to codify it.  [NEWLINE] However, that codification, even if is only one line applied to hundreds of laws, would be immense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In short, my two points were : 1.  We could create a system that simply pointed to morally impermissible actions as illegal, but that would lead to large discrepancies ( or would need have some other system to define what is morally impermissible, out of scope of a high schooler's memory ).  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  In order to eliminate discrepancies, the system needs to codify at least some specific instances, and by doing such for an immense number of actions we go beyond, well, * any * one person's memory.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I'm giving you a delta btw because thinking about it your post has made it obvious to me that the list of subcategories would be bigger than I initially anticipated, and might itself be a pretty significant feat of memorization. [NEWLINE] But I still think it should be within the scope of countability and basically anyone should be aware of all the sets of laws that they need to worry about. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI think the American legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI entirely agree that certain parts are unnecessarily complex and complicated
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is there any evidence or studies to support this? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I got the idea about " being around negative thinking will affect you negatively " from the book " Directional Thinking " by Benjamin Chapin.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] okay.  I sort of agree with you.  [NEWLINE] Was just curious if there had been any research you knew of [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Matthew 2 : 11 [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] When the wise men visited Jesus, it was in a house. [NEWLINE] The Nativity scene is about the visit of the shepherds, but  the wise men are drawn into the manger scene early because  it looks cooler that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Right, but did the inventor of nativity scenes think it would " look cooler " because it portrays Joseph as a stereotypical Jewish cheapskate?  Why change things from the biblical version of events?  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him a big hooked nose. [NEWLINE] They'd have given him opulent dress while giving Mary or Jesus poorer dress. [NEWLINE] Something. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But no : they don't make Joseph look Jewish at all [NEWLINE]. If there's anything anti-Semitic going on, it's the near-erasure of Jesus/Mary/Joseph's Jewishness. [NEWLINE] The artists aren't focusing on Joseph as a Jew ; he's an early Christian to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As to why this conflation of two similar events? [NEWLINE] That's a pretty common artistic trope. [NEWLINE] You say " event X is like event Y, let's put them together ". [NEWLINE]  The visit of the shepherds and the visit of the kings are narratively redundant. [NEWLINE]  It's just cleaner storytelling to do the mashup. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Fair enough, I'm not totally convinced that the change wasn't motivated by the kind of antisemitism that was historically common in Christendom until quite recently, but  I have to admit that artistic license does offer a somewhat plausible alternate justification. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf the various artists who contributed to the scene had intended to make Joseph stereotypically Jewish, they would have<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidFair enough
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER0]  saidI also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidIf the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 25---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said Perhaps this is a bad analogy<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIn this sense, it is not done for attention. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhy should you stay married? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidnumbers don't lie. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhy would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAt what point do your rules against networking kick in? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidFinally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6580717488789237, 'agreement': 0.44155844155844154, 'direct_attack': 0.2289156626506024, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18556701030927836, 'partial': 0.2608695652173913}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7921727395411606, 'agreement': 0.35233160621761656, 'direct_attack': 0.15447154471544716, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'partial': 0.047244094488188976}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7189222290263317, 'agreement': 0.39193083573487025, 'direct_attack': 0.1844660194174757, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20224719101123595, 'partial': 0.08}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5319465081723626, 'recall': 0.5319465081723626, 'f1': 0.5319465081723626, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.35499648572292747, 'recall': 0.3136884414369271, 'f1': 0.3155132550379828, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4934627504448719, 'recall': 0.5319465081723626, 'f1': 0.5007261428956251, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What about " I care about animals, but see it as a necessary evil for my sustenance. "  [NEWLINE] I feel the same way about animals in medical research.  I feel terrible for the animals, but  it's necessary for the health of humans and a better option than researching on humans. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Slaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance though ( is it? [NEWLINE]  I don't know, for all I know you could be a hunter in the middle of nowhere in Alaska ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I am an omnivore, and my diet consists of meat and plants.  [NEWLINE] There is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal.  [NEWLINE]  We could trade information back and forth as to whether or not it's possible to be happy and healthy without meat, but  I'm firmly convinced that meat is a requirement for my diet.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them.  [NEWLINE]  Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). [NEWLINE]  I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Meat is the industry that creates the most suffering for animals though... Being the one that requires the most land usage and causes the most environmental issues as well as obviously slaughtering them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This doesn't really matter if it is something that is necessary.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Vegans are also the group least likely to die of heart disease, with vegetarians being second and omnivores being first ( or the same, depending on which study you're looking at ). I'm convinced it's a healthier diet, which is a nice bonus for being compassionate. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [This study] ( [URL] ) shows that unprocessed meat is not linked to heart disease, but processed meat is. [NEWLINE] I would also argue that a vegan * has * to be more conscious about their diet, and that extra attention results in health benefits. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Many people consider fish to be extremely healthy, and often include it in their " vegetarian " diets. [NEWLINE] Eating fish has been associated with a * reduced * risk of heart disease.  [NEWLINE] Fish farms are equally as cruel as the rest of the meat industry, but we don't relate to them as much so they don't tug on our morals. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Certainly, you can still be healthy with alternative diets.  [NEWLINE] However,  you have to curate your diet much more if you do not include meat.  I'm not convinced that an equally curated diet including meat would not be healthier.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSlaughtering animals is not a necessary evil for your sustenance<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThere is not a good way to supply meat at an industrial scale that doesn't involve some measure of suffering for the animal. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You just want to make a statement. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity,  but  more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not America is a democracy.  [NEWLINE]  Democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command-and-control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  [NEWLINE]  You have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the US as a democratic state.  [NEWLINE]  For example : according to you a democracy is defined as " a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking,  and  doesn't have a spy network ".  [NEWLINE] You'd get an F in government class I suppose. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I probably would yeah.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: America is not a democracy<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity, 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said It's not a free, democratic society by any means. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said it remains by definition a democratic one
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNot only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEither way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe you have three choices once you discover the suffering animals endure in the meat industry... [USER0] [NEWLINE] The options are as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. You don't agree with what is going on and stop supporting it.  [NEWLINE] 2. You don't care about animals, so you're content with paying for them to be abused for your pleasure.  [NEWLINE] 3. You don't agree with what is going on, but try to put it to the back of your mind and continue to support it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Reasoning :  I used to follow 'option number 3', but recently started 'option number 1' in an attempt to line my actions up with my values.  [NEWLINE]  I suspect this way of looking at it is still somewhat simplistic however, so feel free to prove me wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I think restricting this concept to the meat industry limits us to a " vegetarian/vegan lifestyle vs. carnivore lifestyle " debate, when  it's actually a lot deeper than that.  [NEWLINE]  I know, for instance, that components in my smartphone and laptop are made of minerals that were mined by slave labor in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the chocolates I love to eat contain, in all likelihood, cacao that was farmed by people living in truly deplorable conditions.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the medication I take was almost certainly tested on research animals who lived short, sad lives.  [NEWLINE]  I know that there's a good chance that the shirt I'm wearing was produced by underpaid, overworked labors who might have even been children.  [NEWLINE]  I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change.  [NEWLINE]  I know that my leftover Christmas cookies, made by my vegetarian mother, still contain eggs that probably came from a battery farm.  [NEWLINE]  I know that by purchasing my knockoff Keurig coffee from Wal-Mart, I'm supporting a corporation that exploits everything it touches.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And that't the ethical weight of just the things that are in arm's reach of me! [NEWLINE] Aren't we all choosing Option 3 for most of the ethical conflicts in our lives? [NEWLINE] I think people quickly reach a point of ethical fatigue where they simply * can't * care anymore. [NEWLINE]  A completely ethical lifestyle is probably not possible without completely rejecting the modern world.  [NEWLINE] That doesn't mean I can't try to * reduce * my impact on the world... but  I have to accept that I will * never * be able to fully live within my own values.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I see what you're getting at.  [NEWLINE]  It's easier to forget and ignore because there's too much injustice in the world if you tally it all up.  [NEWLINE]  I'd still consider what you described as being the third option on my original post, but  it's a very detailed version of it that explains it well.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] That doesn't mean I can't try to reduce my impact on the world... but I have to accept that I will never be able to fully live within my own values. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This would also be my reasoning if I were vegan but still wouldn't take a flight out to help build a school in Africa.  [NEWLINE]  It would also make sense if I was building a school in African but wasn't vegan.  [NEWLINE]  If I was doing absolutely nothing to aid any of the values I believe in, then it wouldn't make any sense however.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Yeah,  I think there's just a limited number of things that people are capable of caring about at one time, and  issues that are of personal relevance are always going to carry more weight.  [NEWLINE]  So while someone might take Option 1 on a personally significant issue that has a lot of meaning to them, the limitations of the human mind force them to take Option 3 on a whole lot of other issues.  [NEWLINE]  So somebody who takes Option 3 on a particular issue may not be making a true choice to * ignore * that issue.  [NEWLINE]  They're just prioritizing their mental resources.  [NEWLINE]  Without prioritizing those resources, there's a risk of " compassion fatigue, "  which you see frequently among people in empathy-intensive occupations ( especially medicine, education, and other fields where issues outside the individual's control tend to produce strong feelings of frustration and futility ).  [NEWLINE]  I do care about the welfare of food animals, and  I do think that there are ways to produce meat in ways that are at least more humane if not more " ethical. "  [NEWLINE]  I support these efforts when they're available.  [NEWLINE]  But I also think that the welfare of food animals is part of a much larger constellation of interrelated " food production issues " that involve everything from environmental impacts to worker safety to the corporatization of agriculture to government subsidies, and that  without some major changes to those other " food production issues " then there probably won't be significant improvement in animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] So to that end,  it's good that people have different Option 1 priorities to attack the problems from multiple sides.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you,  whilst my original view still stands,  you've altered it in such a way that I now feel a little able to understand others better and in a less scornful light at least!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] =/= ( EDIT : Did I do this symbol right? you're the winner btw ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( EDIT 2 : done! ) [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said it's actually a lot deeper than that. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I know that the salad I'm planning to eat for lunch contains ingredients that were probably farmed in environmentally destructive ways that contribute to climate change. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It's wonderful because I can let it all out <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidMost vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 26---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  in this post you are confusing patriotism with its meaner, uglier cousin, nationalism.  [NEWLINE]  According to George Orwell, Nationalism is the " worst enemy of peace ".  [NEWLINE]  According to him, nationalism is the thought of superiority of one's nation in direct comparison to foreign nations,  whereas  patriotism is simply the love and admiration of one's own country, independent of other countries.  [NEWLINE]  Nationalism is the one that says " America is the best, most perfect country in the world, unlike those other horrible, dirty, evil foreign countries.  [NEWLINE]  Americans are the shining example of civil people in the world and everyone else is filthy and brutish and doesn't deserve entry here ".  [NEWLINE]  Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ".  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  they do not have a belief that they are better.  [NEWLINE]  they have the belief that they are American, and  would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] As if creating jobs for Americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  not morally superior, but makes more sense.  [NEWLINE]  even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other,  they are still in competition and no matter what, they are still separate and independent.  and  in a competition, you don't provide for the opposite side.  [NEWLINE]  It is simply not our place or responsibility to carry other countries' burdens.  [NEWLINE]  And these slogans don't even denote any sense of superiority over a foreign country, just a preference for your own country.  [NEWLINE]  if an advertisement was " creating jobs for Americans and not for those dirty foreign leeches ",  THAT would be claiming superiority over foreigners.  [NEWLINE]  And ultimately, patriotism means different things to different people.  [NEWLINE]  i'm sure for a great many people, it is patriotic to welcome and accept immigrants as equals under our ideals of equality and freedom [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] This comment changed my view, because you said that people love their country, even if their country isn't objectively the best. [NEWLINE] This is mostly illustrated in the following sentences " Patriotism simply says " America is a good country. [NEWLINE] its not the best, and it might be better or worse than other countries, but i still love and respect it ", and " they do not have a belief that they are better. [NEWLINE] they have the belief that they are American, and would prefer their country over other countries, regardless of who's better ". [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said not morally superior, but makes more sense. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said even if countries are peaceful and cooperative towards each other, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidAt what point do your rules against networking kick in? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhile states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. * 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidthe far-left has for the most part been dealt with<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidSince communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6580717488789237, 'agreement': 0.4430379746835443, 'direct_attack': 0.23170731707317074, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18947368421052632, 'partial': 0.2916666666666667}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7921727395411606, 'agreement': 0.3626943005181347, 'direct_attack': 0.15447154471544716, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'partial': 0.05511811023622047}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7189222290263317, 'agreement': 0.39886039886039887, 'direct_attack': 0.18536585365853658, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20454545454545453, 'partial': 0.09271523178807947}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5341753343239227, 'recall': 0.5341753343239227, 'f1': 0.5341753343239227, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36279147830256636, 'recall': 0.317335783446637, 'f1': 0.32008183357576026, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4973060167473837, 'recall': 0.5341753343239227, 'f1': 0.5032783259747536, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEither way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe only difference is where the money goes<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidreal-world examples of communist states
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial.  [NEWLINE]  Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur.  [NEWLINE] Ill narrow it down to religion or culture. [NEWLINE] So,  you are correct if you assume the culture dominates the religion, and you are incorrect if the reverse is true.  [NEWLINE]  With this in mind, I think its safe to assume the truth is somewhere in between, with both the religion and the culture somehow influencing the unrest we see.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I suppose I was taking a harsh stance when I assumed that religion had no effect on behavior, when  it obviously does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I still think the culture dominates religion to a great extent, however I cannot ignore that religion does have an effect on culture to some extent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do however, look forward to seeing if someone can convince me that culture is dominated by religion more than vise versa. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Your stance relies on the assumption that religion has no influence on the actions of its followers beyond the superficial. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said Yet something must exist that allows this pattern to occur. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said Quite honestly it dilutes it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 27---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Networking for jobs behaves as a discriminatory mechanism to keep money & good jobs inside a particular social circle, & should be discouraged or eliminated as a criterion for employment. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. [NEWLINE] Networking is discriminatory.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 1. [NEWLINE] A " standard " hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria - the satisfaction of requirements of the position and merits relevant to that position.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 2. [NEWLINE] Who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions ( e. g. sales ), but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. [NEWLINE] Allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process ( " jumping the line " ) or to use some important person's recommendation as additional clout for their application ( " came very highly recommended by Bob " ) is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '1. 3. 1. I recognize and appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  [NEWLINE] This is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. [NEWLINE] Networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 1. [NEWLINE] Beyond straight nepotism, it is self-evident that individuals who come from families and backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. [NEWLINE] Individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking-friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '2. 2. 1. I understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have ( being tall, white, male, etc. ).  [NEWLINE] Allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias and may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair - that is what I am suggesting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. [NEWLINE] Businesses and societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 1. [NEWLINE] If a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 2.  [NEWLINE] This decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 2. [NEWLINE] If the egalitarian hiring process in-place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] '3. 3.  " Fix the process, not the game. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I understand  " this is how the world works, " and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms. [NEWLINE] I would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account and would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : I'd like to reiterate something, because it keeps cropping up in the comments : * yes, networking is a useful crutch in hiring because most hiring processes are fundamentally broken, but that does not make it fair, just, or desirable. * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Here's a hypothetical for you : [NEWLINE] I'm a software engineer with an idea for a start up.  [NEWLINE] But being an engineer, I just want to focus on the technology.  [NEWLINE] I need someone to handle running the business side of things.  [NEWLINE] I've got a friend I've worked with for years.  [NEWLINE] Our different skills complement each other nicely, we have well established channels of communication, and I know she'll be a great business manager or my start up.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I enlist my friend?  [NEWLINE] Six months into our start up, I can't handle the engineering work alone.  [NEWLINE] My background is software, and there's a hardware component that needs an experienced circuit designer.  [NEWLINE] I know a guy who eats, sleeps, and breathes circuit design.  [NEWLINE] We worked on several projects together in college, and I know I can trust him to get the job done quickly and do high quality work.  [NEWLINE] Do I need to post an opening and go through a standard process, or can I hire my old classmate?  [NEWLINE] Now we're looking to crowd fund the mass production of our product, and we need a good video for Kickstarter.  [NEWLINE] My co-founder's neighbor does video for an advertising firm, and we've looked around enough to know that they've offered us a competitive rate.  [NEWLINE] Do we need to shop more of the market, or can we use my co-founder's neighbor?  [NEWLINE] As mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units.  [NEWLINE] He can't test enough units on his own.  [NEWLINE] He could use an extra hand, but feels making a bad hire would be worse than doing it all himself.  [NEWLINE] He's got an old colleague that is experienced in hardware QA/QC, and happens to be available for six months.  [NEWLINE] Can we hire the colleague who is a known quantity, or should we just punt on hiring anyone because it would be faster for the circuit designer to do it himself than go through a rigorous hiring process?  [NEWLINE] At what point do your rules against networking kick in?  [NEWLINE] I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that someone looking to found a start up should have to dig through a pile of applicants to choose a co-founder.  [NEWLINE] I would also hope that a start up's first technical hire could be someone the founders have a reason to trust.  [NEWLINE] And I see a line manager growing his team as a microcosm of a founder growing his company, though the company may have rules in place to help keep the line managers from going off the reservation.  [NEWLINE] Do your rules only apply to big companies?  [NEWLINE] If so, how big are we talking?  [NEWLINE] Finally, do you apply the same rules to hiring out business services?  [NEWLINE]  When we hired that advertising company to make our Kickstarter video, were we breaking the networking rules?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It is interesting to consider this in the light of recruiting people that you know for your own startup company. [NEWLINE] I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cutoff wouldn't be beneficial for some purpose, but I admit this doesn't stick in my craw as much, and I'll have to think about why. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidNetworking is discriminatory. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAs mass production kicks off, I put the circuit designer in charge of QA/QC for the produced units. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I don't think this depends as much on the cheater as the person he/she cheated on.  [NEWLINE] Some people are unable to stay with an unfaithful partner and should not be pressured into continuing a relationship after that point.  [NEWLINE] Forgiveness depends on the forgiver, not the perpetrator.  [NEWLINE] Nobody " should " be forgiven for cheating, and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who knowingly betrays the trust of a relationship would deserve losing that relationship.  [NEWLINE] I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's expected to break up with the cheater, because some people are willing to be forgiving.  [NEWLINE]  But I can't envision a situation where cheating " should " be forgiven.  [NEWLINE]  Forgiveness is a gift, not an expectation.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] This makes the most sense to me - very coherent argument. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidCaveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc. 
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The highest form of relationship between men and women doomed to be romance [USER0] [NEWLINE] Maybe it has to do with being an adolescent and being new to dealing with the opposite sex, but I'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance.  [NEWLINE]  " Why else do men engage women in conversation in public? "  I wonder ( my perception might just be distorted after reading Neil Strauss's * The Game *  ). [NEWLINE] " Why do I feel like chasing after girls and getting to know them when I have so many great guy friends already who I know care about me so much more? Why can't I be friends with girls ( even pretty ones ) and not feel insecure when I don't try to advance some romantic agenda?  [NEWLINE] Why do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them?  " [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have so many more questions regarding the non-romantic side of male-female relationships, but instead of writing an abhorrent block of text nobody could possibly be expected to read, I ask just the one title question ( thinking that the above questions are more like fragments of a bigger picture of misunderstanding ) because I want to know what older, more mature people think. [NEWLINE] It also must distort my view to have gone to an all-boy's school for the majority of my life.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] At times, I feel like the interplay between men and women is always ( at least always initially ) a bs game where the man tries to show the woman how non-threatening and valuable he is from a non-romantic standpoint before she is comfortable with allowing herself to think of him as a safe partner. [NEWLINE]  Something about that seems so sinister, cynical, and hollow to me that  I can't stand it. [NEWLINE] Please change this view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm a middle aged female.  [NEWLINE] Quit putting the pussy on a pedestal.  [NEWLINE] If you think that the only reason to get to know a female is to bone heryou are doing 2 things 1 ) dehumanizing females a placing them in a category separate from yourself- almost like a separate class or subspecies...  For an extreme example of this look at some Arab cultures where women have few rights and can't even show 1 square inch of forearm lest a man be tempted. [NEWLINE] 2 ) elevating a woman's sexuality to a higher plane than where it deserves to be.  [NEWLINE] You are. Really. [NEWLINE] Knock that pedestal over. [NEWLINE] Women aren't putting your dick up there, don't put the pussy up there. [NEWLINE] It just makes a guy look a little desperate when he treats a woman and her vagina like a magical unicorn.  [NEWLINE] Nobody worth dating really wants that in my book.  [NEWLINE] You may think you aren't guilty of this but by virtue of the fact that you think the sole goal of befriending a female is to fuck her, you are. [NEWLINE] You are making the pussy very valuable.  [NEWLINE] Making friends with a lot of women actually devalues the shit out of it even if you aren't hitting it.  [NEWLINE] Which long term is a really great thing.  [NEWLINE] Continuing to think of women as magical pussy creatures who aren't worth befriending or even talking to unless you can eventually stick your cock into them is not a good way to form a healthy relationship if you manage to form one at all with those beliefs.  [NEWLINE] I've always had lots of male friends.  [NEWLINE] I just don't get along with women.  [NEWLINE] I'm straight.  [NEWLINE] I don't want to have relations with any of my male friends and afaik they don't expect any sex from me.  [NEWLINE] They all know I've been married for 12 years and am loyal.  [NEWLINE]  All we do is hang out and play video games or board games and drink beer ( admittedly its rare that I have the time with 2 kids to do this ). [NEWLINE]  My husband is 100% OK with this and trusts me completely.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] That is a really good point.  [NEWLINE] I guess  I've been indoctrinated into thinking the way you described : that being friends with girls is something wholly separate from being friends with guys when it's not.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI'm beginning to fall under the assumption that the only purpose for guys to get to know girls is to eventually engage in romance. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWhy do I find myself inevitably becoming attracted to them? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous.  [NEWLINE]  The ancestral organism from which the chicken is derived never gave bith to a chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  There is no sharp line representing a single generation that became chickens.  [NEWLINE]  The newly defined chicken species ( a species is hard enough to define as it is ) is not recognized as a new species of chickens until you already have an independently reproducing population.  [NEWLINE] Though  there were ancestral species that produced eggs,  due to the gradual process that produces what we call new species and how we define them, there was never a single egg that gave rise to the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] While  the dividing line between species is quite arbitrary,  if scientists had enough evidence a distinction would be made.  [NEWLINE]  Species are labeled by humans, but really we are all similar life.  [NEWLINE]  Where ever the distinction would be made, wouldn't that make the egg first?  [NEWLINE]  And if you define a species as an independently reproducing population I think both comes at the same time.  [NEWLINE]  An independently reproductive community of animals should only be defined as such once their chicken babies are layed or hatched.  [NEWLINE]  When that happens the egg becomes a chicken egg and the X becomes a chicken.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You sort of C'd my V. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll give you a delta once I go learn how. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> said CMV The EGG came first before the chicken.<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said In terms of evolution, the question is erroneous. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] The only constant is change.  [NEWLINE] Global stability is a myth grown out of a population that has gotten good at balancing acts.  [NEWLINE] The supports necessary for real stability simply don't exist.  [NEWLINE] To carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations.  [NEWLINE] Censorship is an extreme reaction to an extreme force, and here are two very good arguments for why should be seen as an extreme option : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society. We claim that our old positions were wrong, and have good evidence to back this up.  [NEWLINE] With this in mind, we are forced to acknowledge that we are probably making errors in other places, and may even have been led astray in one of the areas we have already changed.  [NEWLINE] Censorship halts this process and locks in whatever is current.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) Censorship does not eliminate the censored individual.  [NEWLINE] Indeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye.  [NEWLINE] This brings their arguments out of public discourse, where a solid counter-argument is more likely to be interjected.  [NEWLINE]  It also dooms any attempt to change their beliefs, as their opponents no longer understand those beliefs sufficiently to do this.  [NEWLINE]  Finally it gives them a true claim that they are being oppressed and targeted, which history suggests tends to strengthen a group.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Good arguments. [NEWLINE] Although I may disagree somewhat, I see why censorship can be dangerous.  [NEWLINE] One thing about censorship : don't you think it's a problem that the likes of ISIS some neo-nazi groups actively recruit on twitter and facebook? Should't this sort of thing be stopped?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There are many things we used to consider extreme that are now fundamental principles of our society [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While this may be true, hasn't the killing of innocents ( and murder or rape, or destruction of property ) always been considered deeply immoral ( outside of wars )?  [NEWLINE]  We already clamp down on extremism, and potential extremists are actively monitored using existing surveillance techniques.  [NEWLINE]  Is it really that bad to go after them just a little bit more?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyhow, for a well thought out response : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTo carry out a balancing act, you have to avoid any extreme reactions, as they only make for larger oscillations. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIndeed, they will work hard to evade the censor, carrying out their activities further from the public eye. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. Change my view. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Not all smartphones are created equal.  [NEWLINE] While you may have an iPhone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship Android or Apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  [NEWLINE] More importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  [NEWLINE]  They use less data ( e. g. images, animations, etc... ) to make it easier to load on people with a poor 3G connection or a low data limit on their plan,  and  they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps changing my position to " websites should not default force a user to a mobile site and instead allow a user to easily choose mobile over regular. " [NEWLINE] Would better handle the situations you have described. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose, the only issue with that is it's very subjective.  [NEWLINE] Some users may like it, others may not.  [NEWLINE] Most websites will let you scroll to the bottom and hit a button for mobile or desktop viewing.  [NEWLINE]  At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile.  [NEWLINE]  There's also some issues with flash animations and CS styles that not all mobile devices can handle, but that usually doesn't make a phone crash, it just might make a website fail to load some bits or look a little jenky.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. " <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said At least if it defaults to mobile, that 3G issue I mentioned means the website will load very quickly if you've got a good connection and let you scroll down and hit desktop right away, and then if you're on a poor connection you're not stuck waiting for the full website to load before being able to switch back to mobile. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I was at a christmas eve service last night ( I'm Unitarian Universalist ) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron ( Native American ) community got me to thinking : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I am not a trained historian, butit seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia,  and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : I'd like to add that  a large part of this view came from something a history teacher told me 6 years ago : " Geography Determines Destiny ", and that quote has stuck with me. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit the second : though I won't say my view has been reversed or anything, it has definitely been broadened. [NEWLINE] Thanks all! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Christianity was primarily spread by the Roman empire. [NEWLINE] But Rome already had a state religion before it adopted Christianity. [NEWLINE] So the victory of Christianity over the Roman version of Hellenism can't be attributed to geography alone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Likewise, Islam was hardly the first religion that Arabia had seen. [NEWLINE]  Its dominance there was not mere geography. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'm definitely intrigued by this, but not quite convinced enough to delta [NEWLINE]. I might be able to go to " The religion eventually adopted by the Roman empire had a very good chance of becoming globally dominant ", but I think that's still largely an accident of geography, and  your post definitely didn't address my point A ) about a hypothetical identical religion in a different location. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you have any thoughts on, if not geography, why the abrahamic religions have become so widespread while other religions have not? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Geography certainly has to be part of it. [NEWLINE] If Islam had arisen amongst the Moriori instead of in Arabia, I suspect we'd have a largely Christian world. [NEWLINE] I can't imagine missionaries travelling out of New Zealand having the same impact that the Arab armies did. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But you can't blame geography for which religion became pre-eminent in Rome. [NEWLINE] You are going to have to look at a few other factors : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] The emphasis on belief rather than practice. [NEWLINE]  For most religions, it matters what you do. [NEWLINE] When pagan Vikings met Christians, they knew the Christian warriors would end up in Valhalla or somewhere Christianly equivalent. [NEWLINE] Why would Thor reject a valiant warrior just because he didn't worship him?  [NEWLINE] So that sort of gives Christianity a long term advantage : you can do what the encountered religion considers " good " but demand small concessions on belief. [NEWLINE] It seems like a compromise but the eventual outcome is that the belief wins and the practices may or may not stick. [NEWLINE] You might be a Christian that acts like a Roman, but the word is Christian and the idols eventually disappear while the Bible sticks around. [NEWLINE] Note that this is to a large extent what happened with the Native Americans. [NEWLINE] It's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ). [NEWLINE] It's more that the Christians would come to the tribes, adopt their ways, offer them good things like education, and all they'd want is a little Bible reading. [NEWLINE] Well the native faiths don't think reading the Bible is against their religion - they didn't emphasize belief the way Christians and Muslims do. [NEWLINE] which brings us to 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. Education. [NEWLINE] To a large extent, Judaism/Christianity/Islam were religions that demanded literacy. [NEWLINE] This meant the teachers were also religious teachers. [NEWLINE] Compare this to China, where literacy wasn't tied to religion. [NEWLINE] There may have been better literacy in China, but the smartest people ( or most avid readers anyway ) weren't necessarily going into religion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] A whole lot of history is actually just individuals doing idiosyncratic things. [NEWLINE] The right person in the right place at the right time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. Universalism. [NEWLINE] Christianity was one of a very small number of religions that claim a duty to proselytize and convert everyone. [NEWLINE] Most religions, confronted with a different religion, just say " this is true here and that's true there " or " those are some deities we hadn't known about " or at worst " those are some deities that are not ours ". [NEWLINE] But Christianity really goes for the " this is true for everyone for always, and we should actively work to spread it ". [NEWLINE]  If Alexander the Great had that kind of religious zealotry, he could have spread Hellenism much more than he did. [NEWLINE] But  he was satisfied with just adding himself to whatever pantheon the locals worshipped. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well, you have successfully moved me from " it's probably about 80% geography " to " it's probably 40-60% geography ".  I think that's enough for a [DELTA], so have one. [NEWLINE] ( edit : is that enough text for deltabot? [NEWLINE] i can expand if necessary ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThe emphasis on belief rather than practice<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt's not just that the Christians defeated the tribes militarily ( though that happened sometimes ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6595505617977528, 'agreement': 0.44025157232704404, 'direct_attack': 0.2261904761904762, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18947368421052632, 'partial': 0.30434782608695654}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7921727395411606, 'agreement': 0.3626943005181347, 'direct_attack': 0.15447154471544716, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'partial': 0.05511811023622047}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7198038013488658, 'agreement': 0.3977272727272727, 'direct_attack': 0.18357487922705312, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20454545454545453, 'partial': 0.09333333333333332}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5341753343239227, 'recall': 0.5341753343239227, 'f1': 0.5341753343239227, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3639628241225512, 'recall': 0.317335783446637, 'f1': 0.31979694823639593, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4984129710830844, 'recall': 0.5341753343239227, 'f1': 0.5034958302752583, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. [NEWLINE] My argument is as follows : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1 ) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1a ) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2 ) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3 ) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4 ) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4a ) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare.  * * [NEWLINE] However * * : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5 ) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether.  [NEWLINE] Moreover,  this practice would be much easier to " evangelize " than a vegetarian or vegan diet.  [NEWLINE]  Face it, meat is tasty ( and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience )  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Vegans decide not to eat meat because they want to make a statement about something they believe in, not necessarily because they want to improve animal welfare. [NEWLINE] ( although they likely do want to improve animal welfare ) Let me explain : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As you already pointed out, becoming a vegan has little to no affect on animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] People will always want meat and the market will always provide it.  [NEWLINE] Vegan that truly believes that they are directly helping animals by not eating meat are deluding themselves.  [NEWLINE] You are correct on this point. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So why do vegans decide to be vegans, if not to directly help animals? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Most vegans eat their burgers without beef because they want to make a statement.  " [NEWLINE] I believe that animals are being treated cruelly. because of this, I will not eat meat. "  [NEWLINE] It's a bit like not going to a restaurant because they came out against a belief of yours.  [NEWLINE] If you believe in gay rights, you may decide not to go to chick-fil-a because of your belief.  [NEWLINE] Do you really believe that you not giving business will help in any way?  [NEWLINE] premise type= " logos_pathos " id= " 24 " rel= " support " rid= " b " ref= " 19 " >no, you don't. </premise> </!  [NEWLINE] no, you don't.  [NEWLINE]  You just want to make a statement.  [NEWLINE] > TL ; DR : You are correct, but you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans </!  [NEWLINE] TL ; DR :  You are correct,  but  you misinterpret the true motivation of vegans [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope that helps. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans.  I know from personal experience that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ).  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I don't think I'm misinterpreting the motivations of vegans. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Your OP implied that you thought the purpose of veganism is was to improve animal welfare.  [NEWLINE] Forgive me if I misinterpreted you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] that people go vegan/vegetarian for a huge variety of reasons, from personal health to carbon footprint to animal welfare to ethics of eating meat to budget ( meat is expensive ). [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes, these are all other reasons that people go into veganism.  [NEWLINE] However, since  ( I thought ) your post pertained to the " Vegans are vegans because they hate the state of animal welfare, " reasoning, I made my post primarily about the relationship between vegans and animal welfare. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidMy general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said You are correct, 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidNo matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is not a democracy [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Really though. [NEWLINE] There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent.  [NEWLINE] The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  [NEWLINE] The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  [NEWLINE] American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. [NEWLINE] These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. [NEWLINE] Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? [NEWLINE]  It's not a free, democratic society by any means.  [NEWLINE]  It's clearly an oligarchy [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] A democracy is not necessarily a functional, benevolent government, nor is a democracy necessarily free.  [NEWLINE] The USA was intended to be a federal republic, a republic being a form of indirect democracy.  [NEWLINE] To see if it actually * is * one ( at least the " republic " part ), we just need to answer a few simple questions. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Is political power in the US held by elected officials?  [NEWLINE] Are those officials elected in free and fair democratic elections?  [NEWLINE] The answer to both of those questions is unambiguously " yes. "  [NEWLINE] The domestic spying, the secret courts, the torture, the corporate favoritism, the environmental destruction, the lies, the unjustified wars, the unregulated financial system... all of those are things instituted or approved by our democratically elected officials, fully within the scope of power ceded to them by the constitution.  [NEWLINE] And we continue to vote those who do these things into office in free and fair elections, time and time again, without fail. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  You can argue, perhaps successfully, that the US is a fascist, un-free state, but  it remains by definition a democratic one. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Fair enough haha.  [NEWLINE]  This is the best argument I've seen here [NEWLINE] Edit : but how can you have truly fair elections if things like superpacs exist? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] What's your basis for believing that SuperPACs make elections un-free or un-fair? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well in my brain a fair election is when anyone can run for office.  [NEWLINE] The fact that you need millions of dollars to do so seems unfair.  [NEWLINE]  It instantly results in a situation where only the rich can run for and hold offices.  [NEWLINE]  On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Anyone * can * run for office.  [NEWLINE] You might not get very far, but you can run. [NEWLINE] And you don't need millions of dollars, you need to be * able to raise * millions of dollars. [NEWLINE] In itself, I don't see a problem with that. [NEWLINE] Raising large amounts of money requires leadership, diplomacy, organization, charisma… all traits I like to see in my elected officials.  [NEWLINE] The corruption and lack of transparency created by PACs and SuperPACs and Citizens United in general is definitely a major problem, but like some other things that have come up in this discussion, it's not an issue that makes the USA an un-democratic state. [NEWLINE] There's no rule saying that the person who raises the most money wins the election.  [NEWLINE]  The fact that most people vote for the most visible candidate on their side rather than the one that most closely represents their interests is a problem with the electorate and also a result of our winner-take-all voting system, but  neither of those are in conflict with the USA being a democracy by definition. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha... it seems like the problem is more caused by the populace not being responsible voters, I see that and agree with it. [NEWLINE] Ideally I would like it if no money was involved in the poltical process, but  that is naive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Okay, I think you have officially Changed My View haha [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Glad this has been a productive discussion. [NEWLINE] If your view has indeed been changed, please draw your attention to " The delta ( [DELTA] ) system " in the sidebar and award me one delta. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The reason I think this is important is because I'm pissed off about the way things are in America, as I'm sure you are, and I always think that the best way to address a problem is to see it for what it is. [NEWLINE] America's problem isn't that it isn't a democracy ; rather, I think that America's problem is that it has fetishized democracy to the point where anything resulting from that system is accepted, even if it's corrupt and tyrannical, and that's exactly what it's turning into. [NEWLINE]  No, we're probably never going to get money out of politics entirely, but  corporations being able to anonymously fund entire campaigns is a major threat to healthy government, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, un-democratic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A delta for you then! ( I'm new, so sorry in advance if I mess it up ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe I put forward the wrong view, butI think you and I more or less agree that their is something fetid in the system. [NEWLINE]  I get tired of seeing people worship at the altar of the US flag -  they seem blind to what the US government is really about. [NEWLINE] Cheers! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said On the municipal level I don't think superpacs are a problem, but definitely on a federal level. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI don't see a problem with that
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  said [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWhen we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 28---------------
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIf we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidEgg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars]
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You haven't really participated in this thread, butI'd like to point out federal vs. municipal difference when it comes to location of the discount.  [NEWLINE] A coffee shop in Seattle might very well decide to have a local firefighters discount, ( I can name a few that do.  ) [NEWLINE] But should they honor a vacationing firefighter from Omaha?  [NEWLINE] How can he prove he's a firefighter?  [NEWLINE] Why should a Seattlite care that a man's employed by a city in Nebraska?  [NEWLINE] While states may have local branches of National Guard, active duty military members serve the nation as a whole and carry one ( 1 ) form of identification that is accepted * everywhere. *  [NEWLINE]  This simplifies the discount process and  may point to a succinct reason why they tend to receive a blanket discount in most areas of the US.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Thatands a good point, though Iandm curious as to why they donandt advertise the other discounts. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Admittedly, it's not as common as the military discount, but the places that have it advertise the hell out of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] If we are being really technical, we can confidently say that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE] The chicken, as far as we know came into existence around [2500-2100 BC. ] ( [URL] #Origins )  [NEWLINE] Egg bearing animals, however, seem to be [ as old as the dinosuars] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  From this, we can conclude that the egg came first.  [NEWLINE]  ^ Unless ^ you ^ are ^ talking ^ about ^ the ^ CHICKEN ^ egg ^ vs ^ the ^ chicken, ^ in ^ which ^ case ^ I ^ have ^ no ^ clue.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  While the question doesn't specifically say a chicken egg, I think that argument is kind of silly.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] well... yeah.  [NEWLINE]  My comment was a silly way to point out a flaw in your post.  [NEWLINE]  It wasn't an actual argument.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such [USER0] [NEWLINE] The DSM-IV defines delusion as :  [NEWLINE] A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.  [NEWLINE] Otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar " kin. "  [NEWLINE] If someone walks around genuinely convinced they are Jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  [NEWLINE]  But out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  [NEWLINE]  We should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Since you mentioned the DSM IV, it is worth pointing out that all of the disorders listed in the DSM IV have one central piece of criteria that is at the heart of the diagnostic process ( which I believe you've missed ), and that has to do with the degree to which the disorder is disruptive not only to the person who has the disorder, but to the general public as well ( if you doubt this, read through the criteria for any disorder listed in the DSM ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Generally speaking, delusions themselves are arguably less relevant to whether or not a behavior is indicative of a disorder than are the social repercussions of that behavior.  [NEWLINE] Take for instance being " taken by the holy spirit ".  [NEWLINE] From an outside perspective, this certainly appears to me to be a delusional behavior, but of course this alone is not enough for it to meet the criteria of a particular disorder.  [NEWLINE] As people can engage in all kinds of delusional behavior and often still function in the world quite well, this is not sufficient evidence for whether or not something should or should not be constituted as evidence of a disorder.  [NEWLINE] The belief that one has an animal spirit is not new and has been a component of many primitive animistic cultures throughout history, and certain Native American practices still have vestiges of this, though most of us wouldn't describe them as " delusional " simply because they follow the traditions of their ancestors as they've been practiced for centuries.  [NEWLINE]  While you may find the practice disingenuous or disgusting, this is not reason enough to hold the behavior as evidence of a specific disorder in and of itself, and  in cases where there may be genuine mental illness involved, I believe that there's enough criteria already set forth in the DSM to diagnose these conditions accurately without directly addressing this particular cultural phenomenon as some kind of mental health outlier.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] You're right.  I forgot that one of the main diagnostic criteria for almost any mental disorder is the impact it has on the persons well-being, and [NEWLINE]  if someone is generally in a better state identifying as an otherkin, then there would be no real need to treat them, unless they started disrupting the lives of others.  [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Otherkin are delusional and should be treated as such<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidOtherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidYou make a really good point. 
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Most democracies are far too tolerant of extremism, especially the likes of neo-fascism, neo-nazism, radical Islamism and violent intolerance. The world has been to soft on these ideologies and they need to be eliminated whenever they appear. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  [NEWLINE] It's either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  [NEWLINE] Radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  [NEWLINE] Since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far-left has for the most part been dealt with. [NEWLINE] However the far-right continues to be a menace.  [NEWLINE] I believe fascist neo-nazi groups, the KKK, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical Islamism all fall under the far-right.  [NEWLINE] These groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak-willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  [NEWLINE] Unfortunately with the world's obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand. [NEWLINE] On websites like twitter and facebook we see ISIS recruit blind followers. [NEWLINE] Wouldn't restricting " free speech " put brakes on this sort of recruitment?  [NEWLINE] Political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate. [NEWLINE] I see this as a major flaw in democracy.  [NEWLINE] Fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Instead, I think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism. [NEWLINE] After the horrors of World War 2I find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bringing socio-economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just isn't enough, and their will always be a few bad apples. [NEWLINE]  These bad apples need to be weeded out. [NEWLINE]  Instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As other's said, who gets to decide what these bad ideologies are. [NEWLINE] Here's a substitution using your syntax, but modified details. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Zero tolerance, whatever it takes. [ENDQ] Schools should educate children on the dangers of jewish zionism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children. [NEWLINE] Young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for zionist indoctrination.  [NEWLINE] In a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into the zionist movement. [NEWLINE] When facebook and twitter is used to recruit zionist supporters and other jewish terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  [NEWLINE] The German majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now,  this is obviously extreme, but  you see how such an extreme zero tolerance policy can be dangerous in its inflexibility and its arbitrariness. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] The thing is though, what is considered a political fringe isn't really all that subjective.  [NEWLINE]  Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Most reasonable people think groups like the KKK, the Golden Dawn, Nazis, Militant anarchist terrorists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and any other neo-fascist group are dangerous. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I don't disagree, buton principle who gets to define what being a reasonable person is? [NEWLINE] Stalin thought non-stalinists were dangerous, and  probably a lot of Russians did too who most would consider reasonable. [NEWLINE]  Remember reasonable people actually voted Hitler into office. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well we have the benefit of history.  [NEWLINE] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center.  [NEWLINE]  In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out.  Pre-WW2 germany or Stalinist Russia weren't all that stable.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well we have the benefit of history. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So did they.  [NEWLINE] Tyrants and tyranny are as old as politics themselves.  [NEWLINE] Ever heard of the Reign of Terror?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The moderate majority of the world gets to decide the demarcations for the narrow political band around the center. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] And who gets to decide what being a moderate was, and why is it tied to what the majority wants? [NEWLINE] Todays moderates are tomorrows conservatives, and throughout history the majority has been okay with a lot of terrible shit. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening?  [NEWLINE] It seems a need for censorship implies a certain degree of exposure to these ideas.  [NEWLINE] Also,  stable democracies have elected terrible people too who have done terrible things. [NEWLINE]  100 years of reasonable people who likely were considered moderates lead a persecution of Indians from the Trial of Tears to Wounded Knee.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Buthasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? [NEWLINE] Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. [NEWLINE] However this isn't about being just a bit conservative.  [NEWLINE] It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.  [NEWLINE]  Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Is a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  There will always be evil people that bring misery to the world.  [NEWLINE] Why is it wrong to try and stop them? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] But hasn't most of the world moved past the age of tyrannical rulers? Genocide is something most of the world has moved past, and only a few extremist individuals try to advocate it. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] People thought the exact same thing before WWI.  [NEWLINE] They thought they were too civilized for what would happen in the next 50 years.  [NEWLINE] AndI challenge the assertion we have moved past it considering what's happening in the middle east. [NEWLINE] Hell, Rwanda wasn't that long ago either. [NEWLINE] And even beyond tyranny the west seems complicit in a global order that directly leads to many deaths of the worlds poor each day that they could have prevented. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I do agree that today's moderates are potentially tomorrow's conservatives. However this isn't about being just a bit conservative. It's about people that advocate death and destruction - terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  [NEWLINE] One's person's genocide is another person's defense of their culture.  [NEWLINE] One person's murderer is a other's soldier.  [NEWLINE] Now, I don't think all these comparisons are true, but they certainly aren't hard to make. [NEWLINE] And they certainly have been made throughout history.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Conservatives don't do this, it's extremists. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Exactly, my point there wasn't that conservatives are terrible, but that what is considered moderate and okay changes. [NEWLINE] It isn't some objective fact about people.  [NEWLINE] J. S. Mill would have been considered an extreme feminist back when he wrote, but today he's very much in the center of mainline liberal thought. [NEWLINE] The point is what people consider moderate and reasonable isn't set in stone, and  to adopt a zero tolerance policy cuts too deeply and may cut in the wrong direction (  either failing to get bad people or getting good people ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Your first paragraph is intriguing, and I definitely agree with it. [NEWLINE] The freedom fighter/terrorist comparison is also an interesting perspective.  [NEWLINE]  Although I do think more needs to be done to combat extremism, I see where you're coming from on this.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said In a stable democracy this isn't too hard to figure out. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIs a democracy really that stable if it needs to censor radical ideas to stop nastiness from happening? 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6591676040494938, 'agreement': 0.44025157232704404, 'direct_attack': 0.2235294117647059, 'undercutter_attack': 0.18947368421052632, 'partial': 0.30434782608695654}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7908232118758435, 'agreement': 0.3626943005181347, 'direct_attack': 0.15447154471544716, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'partial': 0.05511811023622047}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7190184049079755, 'agreement': 0.3977272727272727, 'direct_attack': 0.18269230769230768, 'undercutter_attack': 0.20454545454545453, 'partial': 0.09333333333333332}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5334323922734027, 'recall': 0.5334323922734027, 'f1': 0.5334323922734027, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36335401968774533, 'recall': 0.3170658779135736, 'f1': 0.31946335464126874, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.49795897211144285, 'recall': 0.5334323922734027, 'f1': 0.5029828027407313, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said[paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg ) 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe the Brave Little Toaster is an incredibly underrated movie [USER0] [NEWLINE] Ive seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster.  [NEWLINE] The animation is very solid for being made in the 1980`s and I absolutely love the inanimate objects journey to try and find their master.  [NEWLINE] One very tense scene for me was when the vacuum cleaner was trying to cross the canyon.  [NEWLINE] However whenever people bring up animated movies they never bring up the Brave Little Toaster. [NEWLINE]  I feel like this masterpiece is largely unappreciated by a majority of people in favor of other animated movies.  [NEWLINE]  Reddit I think the Brave Little Toaster needs some more attention and some more love.  [NEWLINE] CMV [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The same could be said for a lot of Animated movies from the 80s, Like Transformers, or Starchaser or Rock and Rule. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's too dark, and almost violent. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Some examples would be, when the Flower observes it's own reflection in the toaster, and dies from loneliness when the toaster leaves. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The appliances that have their parts ripped out, are effectively a commentary on black market organ sales.  [NEWLINE] The cars singing " You're worthless. "  and the Toaster killing himself for the master. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I grew up watching the movie, and it doesn't bug me but so did a lot of moms my age, and when the alternative is Adventure Time or My Little Pony, I'm likely to think that Brave Little Toaster isn't good viewing material for kids in 2014. [NEWLINE] Concepts like death or dying in children's features are incredibly out of favor right now.  [NEWLINE]  You can make arguments for something like Toy Story, but  those franchises have been out for over 15 years, and so they get a pass from the now adults who enjoyed the movies as kids.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been a great many " dark " animated movies and shows that grew to become extremely famous.  [NEWLINE] If we`re using a level of " dark " of the level of Brave Little Toaster then why did things like The Iron Giant and Land Before Time get a ton of love associated with them.  [NEWLINE] Especially when  one contains a death of someones mom and  the other almost had an entire town nuked as well as a giant death machine moving through. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Land before Time has about 15 other movies in the franchise which make it popular, much like toy story, and  Iron Giant doesn't really deal with much that's terribly dark or controversial. [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] One thing that I would say was insanely dark for the Brave Little Toaster would be the death of the Air Conditioner but I personally believe Iron Giant to be the darker film because of the war undertone. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIve seen a lot of animated movies in my life but in my opinion they dont stand up to the Brave Little Toaster. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThe fact that it's underrated largely stems from the fact that by today's measure it's far from a children's movie, which unfortunately in western countries is generally the target demographic for animated features. 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThey're not hollow at all, they're fantastic. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The only way your argument holds is if an extremely high percentage of these potential kids would have been unproductive members of society ( if they were criminals, sucked up resources, drained society, etc ). [NEWLINE] Let's say an unproductive member of society is one who spends a large portion of their life in prison and/or unemployed.  [NEWLINE] It might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line] (  [URL]  ) ; but ( a ) most poor children don't become prisoners, ( b ) most poor children don't become unemployed for the majority of their life, and ( c ) most prisoners only spend a fraction of their lives in prison - most of their life is free. [NEWLINE] This implies that the vast majority of time spent by the aborted babies would have been spent * not * in an unproductive manner ( i. e. not imprisoned or unemployed ). [NEWLINE] Therefore, the aborted babies would have contributed more than they sucked up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Furthermore, your argument assumes that if those abortions never happened then we would have 55 million more people in the country.  [NEWLINE] I think is flawed for a few reasons. [NEWLINE] Firstly, many mothers who had abortions decided to have children later in their life. [NEWLINE] But if they had not aborted their earlier pregnancies, then many of them would not have made that decision. [NEWLINE] Secondly, had those abortions never occurred, then America's immigration policies would not have been so lax as there would be less need for unskilled labor, leading to less unskilled immigrants in exchange for more unskilled natives ( all of whom would be tax-paying citizens, unlike all immigrants ). [NEWLINE] And lastly,  if abortions were not permitted, then people would be less likely to have unprotected sex out of fear of forced pregnancies. [NEWLINE] Therefore,  if abortions never happened, we would have more people, but not 55 million more. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] and#8710 ; [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  While there are many questions raised by this comment that may or may not make it valid, it is enough to make me doubt my views more strongly than before I read it [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidThese people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIt might be true that 42% of the aborted babies would have been [below the federal poverty line]
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I completely disagree.  [NEWLINE] Savescumming for optimal results breaks most games and is intrinsically at odds with any mechanic involving the RNG.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Learn to live with your mistakes and move on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've never really understood the demonization of " save-scumming " to be honest, especially in a single-player game. [NEWLINE] I don't personally view it as cheating at all, rather using the tools the game gives you.  [NEWLINE]  How often do we get to go back and correct our mistakes in real life, anyway?  [NEWLINE]  Why should a videogame be subject to the same limitations we have in reality?  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidunfit to fairly criticize the series<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidWithout these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidThis is no different from any other system<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn communism, surplus value is also either created
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidI was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  To be fair that's not specific to 4chan  and that phenomenon has been around forever  ( Tumblr's community is heavily guilty of this same thing ).  [NEWLINE]  It's also a product of individual stupidity,  if your believing something random people are telling you without it being backed by proof and your own individual research,  well that's your own gullibility.  [NEWLINE]  As for 4chan making people into a worse person, I would strong disagree.  [NEWLINE]  I'd say more it just lets people be free, free to test the waters  and  do whatever without your idea's, jokes, concepts tied to any identity.  [NEWLINE]  Every thought stands of its own individual merits.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've been around 4chan since 2004 and  the only way I would ever describe it would be * chaotic neutral *.  [NEWLINE]  One day groups from or within it might organize some raid for the lolz,  [another day they're saving a kitten, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [finding the girl who threw a puppy in a river, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [saving a girl from bullying and suicide, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [paying some poor dudes rent, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE] [organizing against the harmful practices of a cult, ] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] [bringing more exposure to a rape victim, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [give some random vet the best birthday ever, ] ( [URL] / )  [NEWLINE] [helping some guy buy food for his dogs, ] ( [URL]. jpg )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for a womens charity, ] ( [URL]. png )  [NEWLINE]  [raising 5grand for suicide prevention] ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE]  I've honestly seen more positive activism stem from the anonymity culture than I have from any other site.  [NEWLINE]  The problem is a lot of people only understand the surface of chan boards like 4chan  and  equate the anonymity as some cheap way for them to be hateful under the guise of free speech,  but  that couldn't really be further from the truth.  [NEWLINE]  To understand why the board encourages to * hate * is to understand who goes there  and  it's obviously the social outcasts.  [NEWLINE]  So why would a bunch of social outcasts who get made fun of encourage hate and let such raw emotion reign supreme?  [NEWLINE]  Quite honestly it dilutes it.  [NEWLINE]  Getting called a * faggot * on 4chan constantly helps you to brush it off when you hear it on the street,  and  the nice thing about the anonymity of the 4chan board is essentially you have a new identity with each post letting you brush it off even more.  [NEWLINE]  That last post you made someone made fun of you, well cool no one knows that the person who just made the post people are laughing at was the same post they were making fun of.  [NEWLINE]  You're no longer the * faggot * you're the * comedian * until you make a new post and you're the * troll *.  [NEWLINE]  4chan style sites don't create pessimistic, negative, and depressed people it just attracts them  and  quite honestly it's nice to be able to show raw emotion and not have it permanently tied to your identity.  [NEWLINE]  You never have to worry about people being like " oh that dude, that dude always has problems -ignored- "  [NEWLINE]  I've used 4chan a bunch of times to let out my problems about being depressed, suicidal and raped.  [NEWLINE]  It's wonderful because I can let it all out  and  continue to be a member of that community without the community permanently tying what happened to me to my identity.  [NEWLINE]  If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken  because  everyone I talked to would then associate it with my identity and it would be something I would never escape.  [NEWLINE]  Even on reddit i was originally hesitant to be open about it because of the username system would tie it to my reddit identity.  [NEWLINE]  But on 4chan I could discuss it all i wanted and it was a massive emotional relief.  [NEWLINE]  In real life you don't know if your emotional troubles are going to annoy or be a burden to whoever is kind enough to listen,  you don't know if they're just being kind and don't truly care, but  on 4chan style board, if no one cares they're not going to respond and if they feel your problems are stupid they grant you the right to start over immediately and don't force anyone to carry their past with them.  [NEWLINE]  It's the mindset i got from 4chan that helps me and others move on from our problems, that we shouldn't drag them around to each * new thing * we do but instead move on and start over.  [NEWLINE]  It's this aspect that attracts the people you describe,  the site however doesn't create these people it merely attracts them and for many like myself, helps them get out of that mindset in their real life.  [NEWLINE]  I've been browsing that site for 10 years,  and  arguably i'm more optimistic and positive because i've been exposed to that raw humanity.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I wrote all of this in all honesty not thinking anything would change your view based on your last sentence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As it seems you hold the belief that even if people like myself don't feel they are being effected by this site negatively,  you are insisting they are and are just ignorant to their own emotions and experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * edit * * : my terrible grammar [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] A lot of good arguments have been made but I think you brought up some other valid points that others didn't. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think another thing is that over the years the sense of humor has just been lost to me. [NEWLINE] I don't feel like calling someone a fag is all that funny anymore and I don't want to be in on the joke, so I end up taking things seriously instead. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidSurrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said If I fully discussed my rape irl i was always going to feel broken 
Rel Type: tensor(3, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You make your own purpose in life. [NEWLINE]  The only way your life lacks meaning is if you give it none to begin with. [NEWLINE] I would question why you feel that an action's effects have to be felt in perpetuity and never cease in order to be considered " meaningful " to oneself? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Becauseonce you die, it is as if none of it ever happened. [NEWLINE] None of it. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  So to YOU, there is, then, no meaning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidDeath is the great eraser<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLiving life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidWe are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthere should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidwhatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in " Monopoly " games with my family.  [NEWLINE] From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] " Monopoly " was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George. ^ 1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  [NEWLINE] Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  [NEWLINE] After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  [NEWLINE] While this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players.  [NEWLINE] One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few.  [NEWLINE] At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  [NEWLINE] Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  [NEWLINE] When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  [NEWLINE] But the game keeps going and going, because it would be " unfair " to keep going despite the likely outcome.  [NEWLINE] If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance ( perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better " Chance " cards, or  even removal of the pieces entirely ) and to be quicker (  Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example ) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  [NEWLINE]  As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view, for the sake of family game night. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ^ 1 Orbanes, Philip E. ( 2006 ). Monopoly : The World's Most Famous Game and How it Got that Way. Da Capo Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-306-81489-7. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  I've always been under the impression monopoly was designed as a way to show the flaws in capitalism.  [NEWLINE]  Where someone can get obscenely rich with not much anyone can do about it due to the luck of landing on key properties/avoiding others.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps laissez faire capitalism ( or of the chain-gang bullshit going on in the gilded age ),  but  I doubt it is a criticism of capitalism in general.  [NEWLINE]  In fact, Adam Smith ( origin of laissez faire ) did not like landowners,  saying that they did very little to improve the economy/society  and  just sit on their land charging whatever damn price they want.  [NEWLINE]  It could be a criticism that despite that piece of advice we have fallen into that trap,  though  at that point I think that is a little too deep for a board game : P [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidWhile this system would work in a * * quick * * game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAt this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 29---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. [NEWLINE] The information is gutted and moved aroundmaking the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. [NEWLINE] I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the " some people don't have smartphones " argument. [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 1 : I would like to change my position a little to be  " Websites should not default force mobile and have the option to go default and instead start default and allow mobile. "  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : Is it typical of change my view to downvote the ops responses across the thread because you disagree with their view? [NEWLINE]  It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As someone from a developing country, I would like to point out thatmobile sites require less amount of data transfer to view than a desktop site which is a big thing for us due to slower Internet connections. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] I hadn't considered the obvious fact that web sites can be accessed globally and not everyone has the type of network the US enjoys. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone.<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said It's very off putting and doesn't encourage me, as op, to continue discussing my view
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: If you're able, European and subscribe even loosely to European values, you should be on the Ukrainian border, driving back Russians [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Obviously I'm not there right now, but I'm curious if anyone can put my mind at ease that I shouldn't be. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Feels to me as if Putin senses weakness in the Western world,  with the US and Europe driven farther apart by issues like privacy and human rights, the US withdrawing as a dominant force in geopolitics, because people in and outside of the US are fed up with the US policing the world.  [NEWLINE]  His territorial pissings seems to be meant to elbow some room for himself on the geopolitical stage, in other words gaining power.  [NEWLINE]  Putin is a totalitarian, oppressive, ruthless man, and allowing him to gain more power will affect all of us.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian.  [NEWLINE] This just won't help the situation in any way.  [NEWLINE] If you really want to help, sending money you earn with something you're actually good at ( your job ) is far more helpful.  [NEWLINE] Another thing you can do is to tell your government to send ( military ) aid.  [NEWLINE] Neither things are as cool as fighting Russians out of a moral sense of duty, but they're far more effective.  [NEWLINE] The above assumes that the Europeans should get more involved with the Ukrainian conflict.  [NEWLINE] While I agree that that might be the moral thing to do, we should be very careful not to escalate the conflict.  [NEWLINE]  You should not underestimate how threatened Russia feels by the West's expansion into what used to be a buffer zone.  [NEWLINE]  Whether that feeling and their reaction are justified or not doesn't really matter ; the fact is that a proxy war between Europe and Russia would be disastrous.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Awarding a [DELTA] for making me realize that intention to fight back Russians doesn't automatically mean you can do so effectively, and that it's the most effective thing to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My view has not utterly and definitely changed for the following reasons : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Telling my government to send help is easier said than done.  [NEWLINE] Not everybody will make enough that his financial support will outweigh the military support he can provide, this is a definite nuance to my general initial statement though.  [NEWLINE] Supporting foreign militaries financially also has proven sketchy at best in the past, because it's hard to control where the weapons eventually end up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I still needs convincing that supporting the currently ongoing fight is actually escalating the conflict. [NEWLINE] Putin knows very well that he's transgressing.  [NEWLINE]  If that's quelled quickly and effectively, things will get back to normal, whereas if he gets away with it, he might push and push to see how far he can go.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidI doubt anyone on the Ukrainian front actually wants a bunch of untrained Europeans to show up and start attacking anything that looks vaguely Russian. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidThis just won't help the situation in any way. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(9, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”. [USER0] [NEWLINE] For those of you who donandt know, itands common ( at least in the US ) for businesses, transit agencies, etc. to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  [NEWLINE] It seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests. [NEWLINE] Some might argue that soldiers do the US a disservice rather than help, but thatands [usually] the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Iandm really hoping thereands a good reason behind the status quo, but weandll see. [NEWLINE] [It looks like thereands even less reason behind it than I initially thought, actually. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [edits in brackets] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [[My viewands been changed. ] ( [URL] ) In summary, I think that  EMS people are just as deserving of these discounts ( and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category ), but I now believe - for the same reason - that  these discounts shouldnandt be offered at all. ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] No they should not.  [NEWLINE] Those people are civilians with full civil rights and in the case of police, are in a privileged position with regard to the law.  [NEWLINE] Military personnel make substantial sacrifices and frequently live in poor conditions.  [NEWLINE] While I disagree with the hero fetish that is popular these days,  I understand and support discounts for military personnel.  [NEWLINE]  Also, note that EMS personnel are frequently employes of private corporations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Iandm not sure how sacrificing rights makes them more deserving of such discounts.  [NEWLINE]  After all, rewarding people for suffering rather than production is what the commies do[! ] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] War for oil sustains our economy.  [NEWLINE]  Not sure where you got your idea of communism, but ok. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Note the irony punctuation. [NEWLINE] It was a joke based on Randands criticism of loving people for their flaws ( I havenandt seen this happen outside of * Atlas Shrugged *. ) and the stereotype of the militaristic, commie-hatinand andMurican. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt seems that medical responders ( even hospital staff, actually ) and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidAs for the " Theyandre not risking their lives for our country. " argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(18, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Humans are going to die out because of an economic collapse [USER0] [NEWLINE] Bill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries : Hunter/Gathering, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services. What's next? What category can you imagine in which billions of people will be working in the future? [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It turns out that there is a final category. It is known as Unemployment. As Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse. When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so. The cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of Man. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle. It is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] There is also a Youtube video to go with this opinion.  [NEWLINE] [URL] [NEWLINE] I do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, I just have not been able to beat it myself.  [NEWLINE] I do disagree with Gade a little bit.  [NEWLINE] I don't think it would kill everybody,  but  the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  [NEWLINE]  I probably believe this because I listen to Alex Jones too much.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Before I respond, I'd suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic-level answer. [NEWLINE] Almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory ( and routinely do show up there ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] There have been 4 jobs or activities which Man has engaged in throughout the centuries [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is almost just a semantic argument.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  [NEWLINE] There's no reason in particular for it to be * crossing the line * soon, especially within months.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] At some point, Man's artificial economic system will necessarily collapse [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Necessarily? This is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] When that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No explanation given for this either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] What is the current jobless situation? Unemployment's relatively low...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] When you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean? [NEWLINE] Market failures? [NEWLINE] Currency issues? [NEWLINE] A recession or depression? [NEWLINE] Bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began. [NEWLINE]  There is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  [NEWLINE]  All of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You make a really good point.  [NEWLINE] It doesn't make sense for people to just agree to walk away and starve to death. [NEWLINE]  At that point it would just make more sense to be professional privateers.  [NEWLINE] I am going to check out /r/badeconomics, but until then [DELTA]. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidBill Gade presents the argument better than I do so I will just quote him. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidI don't think it would kill everybody, 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Freedom of speech is being taken too far [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In the last few weeks we've had two huge events happen in the world, both of which were caused by matters relating to " freedom of speech. " The first being the hacking of Sony over The Interview, and today the shooting at the offices of a satirical magazine in Paris. [NEWLINE] I certainly value our free speech but to me there is a clear line between exercising your first amendment right (  " President Obama sucks! " etc ) and doing things that are known to be offensive to other cultures (  Satirical cartoons of prophets, assassinating leaders, etc ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but  if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you say something antagonizing to a bully and you get your ass kicked, you should have anticipated that outcome. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Think of something you do every day that you consider perfectly reasonable ; something that harms nobody in any direct sense.  [NEWLINE] Let's imagine this thing is to defined as " walking down the street wearing headphones ".  [NEWLINE] Now imagine that I tell you that you doing this offends me deeply for reasons of personal belief that you don't share.  [NEWLINE] I warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In a society that can't protect you from me, it might be * wise * for you to take off your headphones to preserve your life. [NEWLINE] That does not make my demand legitimate, does not make my shooting you an acceptable act and does not make my actions your fault. [NEWLINE] What you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence.  [NEWLINE] I think people who satirize Muhammad in ways that Muslims consider blasphemous should stop doing that.  [NEWLINE]  I think it's counterproductive, antagonizing and in poor taste.  [NEWLINE] But  if someone disagrees with me on that point, * they don't deserve to be shot. *  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I definitely do condone any sort of reactionary violence and hope I didn't imply that through my post. [NEWLINE] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered?  [NEWLINE] I guarantee no one would care.  [NEWLINE] But suddenly everyone was up in arms when they thought they were never going to see the movie The Interview because for a few moments Sony reevaluated the situation and decided not to release it.  [NEWLINE]  Nobody seemed to be saying " Jeez guys, maybe this is a really bad idea and we shouldn't do it. "  Most people seemed to be saying " Fuck North Korea!! [NEWLINE]  We'll watch our fucking movie cause we'ere FREE in America!! "  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] What would the reaction from Americans be if someone walked through the streets of a predominantly black neighborhood saying " I hate black people " and was murdered? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  " What would the likely reaction be? " is not the right question to ask. You should ask " what is the proper reaction? " A person doing that is probably an asshole,  but that does not mean that silencing him is a proper reaction.  [NEWLINE] And I think many people would care, because nothing you say should be enough to justify my shooting you.  [NEWLINE] The two examples you've mentioned are both examples of satire that have been forcibly silenced.  [NEWLINE] Satire is the portion of speech that always stretches the boundaries of what we condone because its purpose is often to be offensive as a means of highlighting truths about people or society that are difficult to address seriously.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In any case, I think you may have missed the point. [NEWLINE] None of the examples you given actually hurt anybody.  [NEWLINE] They have only provoked reactions.  [NEWLINE] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked.  [NEWLINE]  Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures.  [NEWLINE]  Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] North Korea hacked Sony because they are so paranoid and insecure that they can't stand their leader being mocked. Some Muslims are so irrationally offended and self-important that they believe they have both the imperative and the right to kill people for drawing pictures. Neither of these examples illustrate problems with the speakers, they show the unhinged reactions of listeners. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Damn. [NEWLINE] I think you just changed my view. [NEWLINE] That's what I needed, thank you. [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhat you ought to hope is that society will protect you from someone like me and make it clear to me that my preferences will not be especially entertained because I threaten violence. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI warn you that continuing to do this will mean that I will shoot you on sight. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I guess my question for you would be : what is inherently wrong with seeking attention? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you're doing so in a way that takes away from others, I can see the problem : e. g., if you're one of those people who feels the need to one-up * every * story at a party, you might need to learn to chill out and share the spotlight. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] But if your contributions are welcome and socially appropriate ( e. g., you're not spamming the subreddit with new posts ), then why does the " attention seeking " ( if that's what it is ) strike you as being a problem? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Like I said, I have no problem with it, it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers. [NEWLINE]  To me anyway, this seems like that person has an underlying weakness.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] it just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Can you really take care of exhibitionist desires just in your personal relationships? [NEWLINE] I suppose some people might be satisfied with constructing fantasy scenarios with their partner.  [NEWLINE] But it is weakness to post pictures, or weakness to decide that you are too ashamed or worried about consequences to post pictures, even though you want to? [NEWLINE] Are you saying that it is weakness to want to post pictures in the first place? [NEWLINE] (  To me, that would seem more of a preference than a strength or weakness.  ) [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit just means ( to me ) that that person is seeking attention that they areas not receiving in their interpersonal relationships that they already have and instead seeking that attention through a morally questionable practice with strangers
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(15, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6583990980834273, 'agreement': 0.4430379746835443, 'direct_attack': 0.2111111111111111, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19148936170212766, 'partial': 0.30434782608695654}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7881241565452092, 'agreement': 0.3626943005181347, 'direct_attack': 0.15447154471544716, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'partial': 0.05511811023622047}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7174447174447175, 'agreement': 0.39886039886039887, 'direct_attack': 0.17840375586854462, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2057142857142857, 'partial': 0.09333333333333332}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5319465081723626, 'recall': 0.5319465081723626, 'f1': 0.5319465081723626, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.3616770743334333, 'recall': 0.3165260668474468, 'f1': 0.31875129824425597, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4970432228597315, 'recall': 0.5319465081723626, 'f1': 0.5020277133710782, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Religion is not violent or not violent, its followers are. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So recently I've seen a lot of posts condemning Islam as a violent religion or a sexist religion. [NEWLINE] I point out that many Christians follow the bible which has numerous examples of sexism, but in application, there are numerous branches of Christianity that are no more sexist than secular groups.  [NEWLINE] For example, Congregationalists and Universaliists.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So,  my belief is that while religion can inform the views of people, it is far more likely that religion will be used to justify actions that would have been executed any way.  I think that most Jewish people don't want to stone adulterers and most Muslims don't want to stone non believers.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Most branches of modern religions aren't inherently violent, and  there are complex socio-political issues involving the ones that are  (  e. g. how much of the violence perpetrated by Wahabist Islamists is based off of true religious fanaticism, and  how much is caused by angry, politically disenfranchised young men who seek out an ideology that justifies their anger with America/the West ), but  that does not mean that a religion cannot have violence as an integral part of it, and there are historical examples of this.  Vikings believed that the highest achievement and best place in the afterlife were gained by dying bravely in battle.  [NEWLINE]  The Thuggee cult believed that the murder of innocents was necessary to appease Kali and prevent the destruction of the world.  [NEWLINE]  Aztecs required human sacrifice in their religious rituals.  [NEWLINE]  Perhaps some facets of these historical religions were based off of a desire to justify actions that the original practitioners would have done anyway, but  the belief eventually becomes the driving force and incentive for the action in later generations.  [NEWLINE]  You are probably right that cultural norms are extremely influential in the creation of a religion, but  once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth.  [NEWLINE]  Many religions have historically encouraged, or even required violence, and once that religion and it's expectation of violence is established, it makes it much more difficult to enact societal change on the group.  [NEWLINE]  It's hard enough to change a social norm of violence when it's simply cultural, it's even harder if people have been conditioned to believe that the norm is all that stands in the way of preventing the end of the world or is a persons only way into Valhalla.  [NEWLINE]  I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent, and  that even if culture helped start that norm it eventually becomes the religion that causes the actions.  [NEWLINE] <reply author= " DurianMD " id= " cnjua2g " > [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3q " ref= " 3o " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. </claim> [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE] <premise id= " 3r " ref= " 3q " rel= " support " type= " pathos " > You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue </premise> while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE] <claim id= " 3s " ref= " 3q " rel= " agreement " type= " evaluation_rational " > That was terrific. </claim> [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </reply> [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  This is exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for.  [NEWLINE] I'm on mobile, but I'll award you a delta when I get home. [NEWLINE]  You've appealed to all my sensibilities around this kind of issue  while only making statements I agree with to change my view. [NEWLINE]  That was terrific.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said once that religion is established as the capital-T Truth, the tail begins wagging the dog and culture shifts to accomodate and protect that Truth. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said I think in those cases we can both say that the religion is inherently violent
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote becausethey don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check?  [NEWLINE] What about terminally ill adults?  [NEWLINE] They wont experience long term consequences.  [NEWLINE] What about the unemployed?  [NEWLINE] They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). [NEWLINE] Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you (  I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? "  )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [NEWLINE]  You are making the argument that because they aren't living through what younger generations are living through then they can't make informed voting decisions regarding those people.  [NEWLINE] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? You could say that young people will vote in interests of creating the best retirements because they will some day retire but do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Should young adults with trust funds not be allowed to vote because they don't know what it is like to live pay check to pay check? What about terminally ill adults? They wont experience long term consequences. What about the unemployed? They don't pay income tax so they don't contribute ( for the sake of argument ). Can we just start taking away the voting rights of everyone who has a different political ideology than you ( I assume this is what you are really getting at, " can the old people just die so we can have some progress already!?!? " )? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This actually is a good point.  [NEWLINE] I would be inclined to say that terminally ill people shouldn't be elected either, becausethey wouldn't have to deal with the consequences either. [NEWLINE] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [NEWLINE] Still, this ( especially the trust fund part ) is making me realize it isn't a perfect idea, although I still believe it is a good idea. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Also, if old people can't vote than who will represent their interests? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  I really don't think that the over 62 demographic has any concerns that effect ( affect? ) just them.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Well how can you expect young people who haven't experienced being old to make informed voting decisions regarding retirement? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  As you mentioned, it will directly impact them in the future.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] do you really expect people to prioritizes decades in the future over the short term? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I realize that they won't always prioritize long-term interests, but at least they have a reason to, unlike old people. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hope I covered everything. [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In my view, I'd say that homeless people would be ideal for leaders, since they know exactly what the problems are, although they don't contribute financially. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I get where you are coming from butI think you are putting too much stock in the idea that you can only empathize and understand a situation if you have lived through it. [NEWLINE] I grant you that there is merit to that idea but, lets be frank, if someone is doesn't have their life together to the point where they are out on the streets, how can we expect them to lead anything?  [NEWLINE] This is why politicians have advisors on staff, so that they can get " expert " opinions when they are under educated on an issue.  [NEWLINE] America ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical, for this reason its better to have someone who is an effective problem solver. [NEWLINE] While a homeless person might have some very valuable insight on dealing with life on the streets, that doesn't mean they would have strong ideas on how to actually go about solving that problem, not to mention on how to deal with America's complicated relationship with China ( for example ). [NEWLINE]  This is why you see so many older people in politics,  it takes time to build the experience ( and contacts/wealth/name recognition ) to be able to handle the massive amount of varying problems politicians face. [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidits better to have someone who is an effective problem solver<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAmerica ( and every other country in the world for that matter ) has a vast array of problems ranging from social to economic to geopolitical
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidassuming they all die
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People over the retirement age (62) should not be allowed to participate in politics. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I've noticed that nearly everyone in Washington is extremely old. [NEWLINE] I have always thought that that was a bad thing, because of a few reasons : 1.  if you are already old, then the long-term consequences of your decisions probably won't happen until after you are gone, but will be horrible for all of us that are still around,  [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE] if you are already retired, then you wouldn't know what it is like for a working person today, especially someone struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : old people shouldn't be in politics because  the consequences of their decisions won't affect them, and  they don't understand what the circumstances of today are. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Some of your criticisms are definitely valid. [NEWLINE] However, older people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, imagine a relatively long ( 30+ years ) period of peace. [NEWLINE] All of a sudden, war is a possibility. I would like my decision-making body to have at least a few people who might have had prior experience with a war. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Additionally, when you elect someone, like your senator, you're not just electing them, you're also electing their entire staff. [NEWLINE]  The senator might not have direct experience of what it's like to be a working person today, but does that matter as long as they have someone who can explain it to them in such a way that they understand and accept it? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Althoughit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict, I can see how something similar could happen. [NEWLINE] However, it's not like the previous generation's knowledge would have disappeared there are thousands of guides and essays about every topic. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] sure, but guides and essays are not necessarily the same as personal experience. [NEWLINE] I was using that point to support the more general statement that older people often have a breadth and depth of experience that younger people may or may not have, and  that is useful for decision making in a political context. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I guess we will always need first-hand experience when odd situations come up [NEWLINE]. I'll give you a delta in a bit when I'm on not on mobile. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Here it is : and#8710 ; Merry Christmas [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidolder people often have more varied or extensive life experiences to draw on, and do not generally make decisions in a vacuum<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidit's highly unlikely that there would be a long period without conflict
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person [USER0] [NEWLINE] Because of the anonymity on 4chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  [NEWLINE] They will care about how people respond to them, but since it's largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Surrounding the entire site there's a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group. [NEWLINE] Some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, SJWs, casual gamers, Jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] On boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof. [NEWLINE] Things about e-celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact. [NEWLINE] It will reach conspiracy theory levels of " proof " where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group-effort that's uncovering something.  [NEWLINE] Surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  [NEWLINE] I'm not saying that every person who browses 4chan is depressed or negative, but  that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Thinking that you are unaffected by this doesn't necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : [Awarded Delta] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It will certainly make you a colder person.  [NEWLINE] Or let's say, a " less sensitive " person. [NEWLINE] But I'm not conviced that this is always a bad thing.  [NEWLINE] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool while most other people around are freaking out like crazed apes, yelling and really doing nothing to help at all.  [NEWLINE] After all the freak sexualities i was exposed to in 4chan, I find it hard to judge anyone about anything they do with their bodies and partners.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so on. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'd say 4chan will open your eyes and show you Reality on many topics.  [NEWLINE] It can have a bad influence with all the racism etc tho but this, you have to keep in check yourself. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] About " pessimism ".. well yeah...  some people may answer to you that there is not much to be optimistic about in this world and that maybe you are delusional/uninformed to think otherwise. [NEWLINE] Are they right? [NEWLINE] Are they wrong? [NEWLINE]  Hard to tell. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] After all the gore I witnessed on 4chan, I'm able to jump in an accident scene and actually keep my cool [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Is this something that has actually happened? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes and no. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a little girl was swept by a car in Paris, she was lying unconscious with a bit of blood from her nose, people were hysterical, I kept the mother in check cause she was trying to move her, then had to keep the people around in check cause they were physically trying to restrain her to prevent the mother to only touch her and she was getting totally mad... [NEWLINE] All while calling the ER and taking a picture of the car's licence plate cause the driver kept near his open door all the time ( while he was being harassed and yelled at by like 10 persons ). I've had no follow up on this incident. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Just 2 weeks ago, heard and felt a crash very close to my house, a drunken teen had just smashed his car full force into another's property wall after missing the turn, neighbors went out but no one had the head to keep the guy in check, cause he was walking near his ruined car, not understanding what just happened told him to stay put and sit and just generally speak to him so he doesn't freak out. [NEWLINE] People were looking from a few meters, not doing anything. [NEWLINE] I called the ER, the guy stood up and tried to restart his car, had to take his keys from him, spent 20 minutes, making small talk, reassuring him and just generally checking if he wasn't internally hurt/losing consciousness/ had blood coming out from the mouth ears or nose. [NEWLINE] He seemed ok appart from the shock and high level drunkenness.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Aaand... I work in a surgery unit and  the kind of gore I witness there doesn't shock me at all. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So yeah. It wasn't a person cut in half or whatever gore you can see on 4chan but  I think a bit of desensitization can help keep a leveled head in stressful situations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s><s> saidCMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it's taken as fact
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] This is one of those views that likes to view production, capital, labor, and all of economics as a zero sum game.  [NEWLINE] It's not.  [NEWLINE] Money circulates multiple times in a system, and value is created at each stage. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I. e. you're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I could reduce this down to the absolute simplest case and thus reduce the entire argument to absurdity : a single worker, who owns all of his own tools ( that he made himself ), makes a doll out of parts he gathers or makes at no cost to himself. [NEWLINE] The doll is worth $10.  [NEWLINE] But since no one in this system actually has $10, no one can buy that doll, and therefore it goes to waste. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you see why this reasoning breaks down because it leaves out a lot of economic activity outside of the example shown? [NEWLINE] Nothing about scaling that up to a factory changes the reasoning. [NEWLINE] The reasoning is just oversimplified and wrong. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In reality, all of the money received by the factory for the dolls goes to someone. [NEWLINE] One problem is that typically most companies aren't owned by the " bosses ". [NEWLINE] They are owned by the owners of the company, which are many and varied, often including the workers in many cases. [NEWLINE] The excess value goes to all of them, who spend it on many things. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Of perhaps some of it is retained as capital by the owners. [NEWLINE] But what does that really mean?  [NEWLINE] People don't actually " horde " money in couches.  [NEWLINE] They invest it in other productive stuff, such as new factories that produce * more * stuff ( someone has to pay the people that build the factories ), or money that is borrowed by people to start their own businesses. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now, yes, some businesses fail, and that is by and large where most of the " surplus value " is " wasted ". [NEWLINE] But only in a very narrow sense, because in the process of being " wasted ", it ended up going to other people for the businesses purchases, payrolls, etc. [NEWLINE] Additionally, the businesses that succeed end up generating * more * economic activity.  [NEWLINE] This is no different from any other system, BTW. [NEWLINE] In communism, surplus value is also either created ( or, alternately and more likely, a shortage occurs because not enough was produced ). [NEWLINE] The only difference is where the money goes. [NEWLINE] In real-world examples of communist states, the money goes to the state, which  " wastes " a lot of it in overhead and useless production as well. [NEWLINE] Or in some kinds of communism, it goes back to the workers. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Another problem with your view is that factory owners have a lot of ways of disposing of excess inventory, and a lot of incentive to not * create * excess inventory in the first place. [NEWLINE] Other systems have less incentive for these corrections to happen, and as a practical matter  end up generating even more waste, because  the people making the decisions about production don't have as much incentive to get those decisions right. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Already gave this triangle to someone else but wanted to give it to you too if that's allowed. [NEWLINE] Great answer, thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidyou're simplifying it down to a level where it doesn't show all of the uses of the money that actually happen
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(10, device='cuda:0')
			------------EPOCH 30---------------
Prompt: <s>CMV: Posting nude pictures online is caused by a need for attention and not empowering [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me make this clear before I continue, I am not saying that people are not allowed to do what they like.  [NEWLINE] I don't care if people post nudes, I'm just saying that this is how I feel when I see people posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Also, I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] Lastly, I have nothing wrong with nudity and am in fact a fan of nudity, I just don't understand exposing yourself to the entirety of the internet on a whim.  [NEWLINE] Whenever I see anyone, male or female, posting nude pictures on the internet, I immediately assume that they are somehow seeking attention.  [NEWLINE] Of course, that's the point, but I think that it must stem from some underlying need to get attention that they must either be lacking in some other part of their life, or  simply need because that's their personality and that they feed off of attention.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Specifically in the case with women, many of my female friends, including my girlfriend ( hence the throwaway ), have posted nudes and any time I ask them why, they somehow defend it with " it makes me feel good. " [NEWLINE] Of course, I ask them why it makes them feel good and most either don't have an answer or somehow deay it makes them feel empowered as a woman who is proud of her body. [NEWLINE]  I don't understand how posting images of yourself naked, often with the understanding that others will masturbate to you ( /r/gonewild for example ) is not empowering but instead a form of whoring yourself out in a sense.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So reddit, why do people post nudes? I seriously can't grasp the concept in a way that justifies this action, and have come into conflict with female friends and my gf and would like to be able to see this from another angle. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thanks in advance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Thank you for all of the replies! You guys pointed out some clearly fallacious opinions I had and also showed me a multitude of other views on the issue. This is a very personal issue that only pertains to my own beliefs and not something I go around spouting to others. This was a good learning experience for myself, so again thank you all. I have deltas to those I felt really stuck with the discussion, but I'd like to thank you all for commenting. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It depends on the person.  [NEWLINE] One person can be incredibly confident with his/her private parts.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, the person is eager to show off and get some attention.  [NEWLINE] However, most people are not quite as endowed or gifted as these attention-seekers.  [NEWLINE] It's an empowering feeling to be so comfortable with yourself ( endowed or not ) that you are proud to post nude photos.  [NEWLINE] The compliments feel great as well!  [NEWLINE] In this sense, it is not done for attention.  [NEWLINE] After all, most people choose to remain anonymous - so what attention are they really getting?  [NEWLINE] You're also forgetting the tremendous amount of sexual energy that factors into posting nude photos.  [NEWLINE] People enjoy browsing other's nude photos, so they decide to contribute some of their own.  [NEWLINE]  It gives them pleasure to know that other people get pleasure by seeing the posted photos.  [NEWLINE]  Again, this is more empowering than attention-seeking.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I agree that people enjoy showing off, in any context, butisn't that stool a form of attention seeking?  [NEWLINE] Being proud of something ( which in the case of nudes, like breast size, is sometimes uncontrollable and not something that one has to work for to attain that pride ) is different than showing it off.  [NEWLINE] I'm proud of my own genitals but I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them.  [NEWLINE] The difference I see is between pride and attention seeking behavior caused by pride.  [NEWLINE] You so make a good point about the sexual energy.  [NEWLINE] I completely overlooked this part of the equation. [NEWLINE] Of course, for those in relationships or some kind of monogamous partnership, I understand the sexual energy between sharing and receiving sexual images between each other.  [NEWLINE] In the example of the monogamous partnership, I do not consider that type of behavior as being attention seeking or anything because it is meant to be between the two individuals for their own mutual sexual pleasure.  [NEWLINE] The difference between that scenario ( which I think most people can agree with ) and posting nudes online is that often someone will post an image and an unknown amount of people may see it and get pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Nudes end up all over the internet and going into that situation,  a nudes-poster should anticipate this. [NEWLINE] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from?  [NEWLINE] I see that behavior as attention seeking because what they get in return is the gratification of strangers admitting their nudity without the mutual respect in return.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In regard to your comment anonymity, I don't see it as one wanting to gain some type of status from it attached to themselves, but instead the gratification of having others pleasure themselves to their nudity.  [NEWLINE]  For example, internet trolls work on the basis of causing as much fuss and attention as possible while often remaining anonymous.  [NEWLINE]  They are not trying to get attention toward themselves superficially, but they're instead attention seeking to just get the attention of others.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I have no need to show them to anyone other than my girlfriend who I want to enjoy them. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So you want to show them off to your girlfriend so she will enjoy them. [NEWLINE] Do you do this to seek attention from her?  [NEWLINE] Or do you do it because it is empowering?  [NEWLINE] It makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it.  [NEWLINE] Other people don't have partners to do this with so they resort to the internet.  [NEWLINE] Some people even have partners and still do it.  [NEWLINE] It's a thrill and a risk that gives people immense pleasure.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] In anticipating this inevitability, aren't they then giving away they're nudes essentially for anyone to recurve sexual pleasure from? [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] They are not getting any attention though, since they usually remain anonymous.  [NEWLINE] Also, when it is spread online you hardly ever find out who has seen it or what people think of it.  [NEWLINE] Therefore, you may never be able to recognize the attention you get.  [NEWLINE]  Just the act of posting the photo is enough to drive some people wild, whether 1 person sees it or 1, 000.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I want to show them to my girlfriend because I know that it makes her think of our sexual activities and I'm trying to make her think about that to remind her off how it feels good physically and to be close with her in a sexual way. [NEWLINE] I don't do it to bring attention to myself, but rather to our relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to.  [NEWLINE] Like I've said, isn't the garnering of any attention on the internet from your nudes photos still seeking the attention of others?  [NEWLINE]  It doesn't matter how many strangers see it, just the fact that they are strangers.  [NEWLINE]  I think the anonymity of the internet allows people to freely get the attention without worrying about the recognition or views of friends and family, so they're purposely looking for attention they can't find within their immediate relationships.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You do it because you get pleasure from your girlfriend being into you and your sexual relationship.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Other people do it because they get pleasure from strangers masturbating to it.  [NEWLINE] This is empowering, not attention seeking.  [NEWLINE] Just because you don't find it empowering to post nudes, doesn't mean other people won't.  [NEWLINE] It's impossible to assert that everyone who has posted nudes does it strictly for attention.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, I have sent photos of this nature to various girls who I was not dating. [NEWLINE] However, I have never posted nudes online. [NEWLINE] I'm somewhere in between this spectrum. [NEWLINE] I can guarantee you I was not trying to get attention from these girls, and nor was I trying to make them think of our sexual activities or remind them of sex ( impossible since I didn't live near them ).  [NEWLINE]  I enjoyed their compliments, knowing that they received pleasure, and seeing their photos as well.  [NEWLINE]  Sexting is an entirely separate entity that has it's own set of motivations.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I guess a big issue that others here have pointed out is my distinction between empowering and attention seeking. [NEWLINE] I just don't understand that you're of behavior and since I have never partaken in it I just can't grasp it.  [NEWLINE] The trouble I have is that I don't get a good enough perspective from those that do post nudes online.  [NEWLINE] You're right about the sexting thing, and that's where, as I stated in another comment, the fine line ice drawn is hard to find and relatively ambiguous.  [NEWLINE]  Of course, I have no issue with sexting, considering I do it often,  so I guess in that sense I can sort of understand the stance one would receive from posting nudes.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Just as I don't necessarily understand the joy of exhibitionism, exhibitionists don't understand how I * don't * find joy from it.  [NEWLINE] Since I am so unaccustomed to it and do not partake in it, I can't make an uninformed judgement about it.  [NEWLINE]  I am not going to tell that person that he/she is doing it for attention - because frankly - I have no clue why exactly the person does it ( the person may not even know either )!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Thats very true.  [NEWLINE] I guess I just doubt understand. [NEWLINE] Of course, I don't share these opinions with others, I'm just saying that it's hard to get over these opinions I have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You've definitely helped me see this from other angles. [NEWLINE]  Applying it to my own life and what I personally do is a good way to assess not only this situation, but any situation in general.  [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think this is how I award you a delta? [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidIt makes you feel good when she tells you how impressed she is with your junk and when she gets pleasure from it. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThis is much different from posting a photo that a tension stranger will masturbate to. 
Rel Type: tensor(2, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV The EGG came first before the chicken. [USER0] [NEWLINE] According to the theory of evolution it makes more sense that the egg preceded the chicken. [NEWLINE] Before the chicken there was a similar but different creature.  [NEWLINE] Let's call it X.  [NEWLINE] Its completely arbitrary when the X officially evolved into a chicken, but at some point it does. [NEWLINE]  An X, not a chicken lays the first chicken egg.  [NEWLINE]  The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist.  [NEWLINE] Am I wrong? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS I'm playing laser tag soon so I will respond in 20ish minutes. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] The modern domestic chicken is a hybrid of a red and grey junglefowl.  [NEWLINE] The egg produced by cross-breading the two species resulted in the first chicken.  [NEWLINE] Therefore,  you are correct in saying that the egg came first, but  your explanation is incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Interesting. [NEWLINE] I didn't know that. [NEWLINE] You may have just solved thus debacle. [NEWLINE] Where in the world did the chicken first live? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's generally thought they originated in Asia -- India or Southeast Asia, most likely. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Cool. [NEWLINE] Thanks [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said The chicken egg comes before any creature considered a chicken exist. <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidBefore the chicken there was a similar but different creature. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven [USER0] [NEWLINE] There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO /partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  [NEWLINE] I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  [NEWLINE] There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that " sex with another person = relationship over " that I don't think hold up.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Sex is the most important part of a relationship, * * and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not * the * most important part.  [NEWLINE] Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Nobody makes mistakes ever, * * so when they do, the relationship should end.  [NEWLINE] My belief : obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters will always cheat again, * * so better to end it now. my view : That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim.  [ [NEWLINE] But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually! ] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] *  * * Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. * * My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem.  [NEWLINE] Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  [NEWLINE] Caveat : sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.  [NEWLINE]  Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  [NEWLINE]  In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. [NEWLINE] CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'l begin by saying it has never happened to me, andyou make some good points.  [NEWLINE] But I'm addicted to CMV, so here we go. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not the most important part. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] So it is one of the most important parts. [NEWLINE] To break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage. [NEWLINE] I'll continue. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * edit : even if you value it not at all, cheating breaks other important parts of the relationship.  [NEWLINE] Like trust.  [NEWLINE] Loyalty.  [NEWLINE] Companionship.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Nobody makes mistakes ever, so when they do, the relationship should end. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *.  [NEWLINE] Cheating, as I define it, is a choice.  [NEWLINE] A bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters will always cheat again [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] You are correct that this is false.  [NEWLINE] However, I would say that * cheaters are more likely to cheat again *. The circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship. My belief : if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as... talking about the problem. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Yes.  [NEWLINE] But " talking about the problem " is an ideal situation.  [NEWLINE] It often doesn't work out so well that way.  [NEWLINE] People get stuck in a pattern... living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  [NEWLINE] Cheating is evidence that * something * must be wrong.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, so far we can say cheating [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that such a thing will happen again [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship [NEWLINE] Are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven? I'm trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  [NEWLINE] I point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  [NEWLINE] You have every reason to break up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] In my mind, marriage is a commitment.  [NEWLINE] If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  [NEWLINE] One partner isn't fulfilling all of his/her obligations ( i. e. not to cheat ) So why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers?  [NEWLINE] Why should you stay married?  [NEWLINE] It is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  [NEWLINE] It's an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it's impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  [NEWLINE] It's just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  [NEWLINE] It's a choice.  [NEWLINE] But if you don't break up, you are stuck with a person who doesn't value you enough to stay loyal.  [NEWLINE] Why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship?  [NEWLINE] Things need change.  [NEWLINE]  And the cheater is the source of the problem.  [NEWLINE]  Change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] marriage is a commitment. If you break that commitment, the marriage is broken. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] This is the best argument I've heard so far. [NEWLINE] Thanks! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidYou are correct that this is false. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidHowever, cheating on a spouse is * pretty big mistake *. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I'm sure you can find many people who self-identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  [NEWLINE] I'm one of these people.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even if you don't, you don't have to necessarily think you're better than other people because you're against immigration. [NEWLINE] Many of these people believe that it's not our responsibility as Americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries. [NEWLINE] That's not the same as thinking you're better than other people. [NEWLINE]  I don't want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the US, but  I don't think I'm better than the people I'd be denying citizenship. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] I confused patriotism, which is the love of one's country, with nationalism, which is the idea that one's country is better than other countries.  [NEWLINE]  What you said is definitely true about patriots, but  I misused patriots to mean nationalist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Believing your country is better than all others is not the same as believing your country's people are better than all others.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI understand why politics use this slogan<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthe fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthe squat is often referred to as one of the best<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidworks your legs and core quite hard
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Whileobviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, ifsomeone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. [NEWLINE] Swimming is : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] A ) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] B ) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] C ) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] D )  whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body )  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another * * single * * form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities ( EDIT : or physical inability to swim )? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit 2 : view changed, because  " best form of exercise " is actually meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Exercise regimens depend entirely on your goals.  [NEWLINE] Do you want to improve your cardiovascular health?  [NEWLINE] Cardio. [NEWLINE] Do you want to work on aesthetics?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Do you want to increase your physical strength?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of time investment?  [NEWLINE] Weights. [NEWLINE] Best in terms of monetary investment?  [NEWLINE] Walking. [NEWLINE] People have different goals, some thing running a marathon is the pinnacle of fitness, others think 5 plate deads are a better example of fitness, and others think aesthetics is all that matter. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Every exercise I can think of can be done * at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances *.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] resistance in many muscle groups [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eventually though you'll stop making strength gains and simply be increasing your endurance.  [NEWLINE] This is the fundamental problem with all body-weight exercises.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] low-impact [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Best for people with issues! = best for people without issues or best overall.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] whole-body [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] While it's important to workout your whole body, there is a reason that most weight-lifting routines isolate different areas, very few routines are whole body in 1 day. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] another single form of exercise over swimming [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] If you mean a single exercise like a specific lift, I have to ask, which single method of swimming are you talking about? [NEWLINE] If you mean a single type of exercise, weight lifting is by far the best. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As far as single lifts go, the squat is often referred to as one of the best. [NEWLINE] It helps with flexibility, and works your legs and core quite hard. [NEWLINE] It's also the most beneficial for older people since so much of their lives revolve around getting in and out of chairs ( there's an entire article I read about this once ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Best regimen just depends on your goals. [NEWLINE] That said,  I think some of the better weight lifting routines are more efficient at achieving just about any goal you can think of, except cardiovascular endurance.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] thank you, you've [DELTA]'d my view by pointing out that 'best form of exercise' is pretty much meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said whole-body ( or at least most-of-the-body ) <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidit's important to workout your whole body
Rel Type: tensor(1, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: The Call of Duty franchise is extremely overrated and overhyped. [USER0] [NEWLINE] I'd like to start off by saying that the CoD games are good games in their own right,  though they are extremely overhyped. [NEWLINE] One reason I take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  [NEWLINE] There are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  [NEWLINE] Even Advanced Warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  [NEWLINE]  Another reason for my opinion is that CoD doesn't really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  [NEWLINE]  There are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it's just another FPS with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let me address this by pointing one thing out : numbers don't lie.  [NEWLINE] With absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of.  [NEWLINE] Make major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it.  [NEWLINE] You're entirely in your right to feel that CoD is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view. [NEWLINE] You like what you like. [NEWLINE] I can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So back to numbers don't lie. [NEWLINE] Consider the goal the creators of CoD have.  [NEWLINE] To make money.  [NEWLINE] And they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  [NEWLINE] Now, you're an executive of Activision-Blizzard.  [NEWLINE] Why would you tell the developers to do a complete 180 on the series, " for change's sake. "?  [NEWLINE] You only run risk and very little reward.  [NEWLINE] If you stick to the tried and true model they've had, you're very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales. I'm sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the CoD formula.  [NEWLINE] Really, your view of " overrated and overhyped " is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own * personal * threshold for formulaic video games.  [NEWLINE] But this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  [NEWLINE] If they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  [NEWLINE] The idiom, " Don't fix what isn't broken " comes to mind. [NEWLINE] There are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  [NEWLINE] I mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new CoD next year, would you buy it?  [NEWLINE] Probably not.  [NEWLINE] You have a bias against the series.  [NEWLINE] Why would their target audience be the people who * don't * like CoD?  [NEWLINE] It makes no sense.  [NEWLINE]  The other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  [NEWLINE] Making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  [NEWLINE] It makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time ( and therefore cost ) it takes to make a new game.  [NEWLINE]  Brand new engine CoDs likely wouldn't make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  [NEWLINE]  They aren't a charity, so gamers aren't entitled to it.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Hmm... I understand your point. [NEWLINE] And your explanation on why the series' games are extremely similar to each other is superb.  [NEWLINE] However, this in itself isn't why I think the games are overrated.  [NEWLINE] Many other game serie use a formulaic system for their games that renders them very similar to each other, such as Assassin's Creed, or Pokemon.  [NEWLINE] The thing about CoD that really makes it an overrated series is that it is very similar to other FPS games, such as Battlefield.  [NEWLINE]  It really doesn't have any revolutionary groundbreaking features of its own,  and  each game feeds off the success of its predecessor.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then to that, the only thing I can offer is the historical context of CoD. It was the first FPS to really popularize the RPG elements of progression and grow multiplayer FPS to the size that it is.  [NEWLINE] Halo may have been the first of its kind at the time, but CoD created a very effective system where you leveled up, unlocked new guns, and gave you customization in your load out.  [NEWLINE] When considering the first few CoDs, this was massive and largely is attributed to its success.  [NEWLINE] It turned multiplayer FPS from a niche genre to if not the largest genre.  [NEWLINE] One can argue some earlier games like Counterstrike did something similar much sooner, for some reason CoD popularized it.  [NEWLINE] Brought it to the mainstream.  [NEWLINE] It's not so much that CoD is similar to other FPS as other FPSs largely copied their model.  [NEWLINE] Hell, consider Halo 4 that changed their fundamental mechanics to match more of a CoD pace and include load outs and level progression.  [NEWLINE] It's a large statement that such a dedicated fanbase Halo had moved toward the direction of CoD. Given CoD's immense popularity, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon of its success.  [NEWLINE] To view CoD as overrated for being the series that really grew the genre to what it is today would be to say WoW is overrated given how many MMOs are similar.  [NEWLINE]  When you consider there were a select few MMOs before WoW that failed to mainstream and popularize the genre, and the immense number of WoW clones after its success, it's not fair to say WoW is overrated.  [NEWLINE] It's iconic in its genre.  [NEWLINE]  It's the copies and general state of the genre today that is overrated and hackneyed.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Same with CoD.  I feel that your view isn't so much feeling that CoD is overrated as it is that you feel multiplayer FPS is overrated.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Okay, this is good. [NEWLINE] I definitely see your point. [NEWLINE] CoD was the progenitor for what we now know as the FPS genre, rather than a copycat with better graphics. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWith absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that aren't a fan of. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMake major changes and instead of Person A hating the series and Person B loving it, now Person A loves it and Person B hates it. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. [USER0] [NEWLINE] American patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  [NEWLINE] Saying these people shouldnandt be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. [NEWLINE] This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan " Creating jobs for americans ".  [NEWLINE] I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. [NEWLINE] As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  [NEWLINE] The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product,  but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. [NEWLINE] I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but  really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. [NEWLINE]  Patriotism is really just this belief.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others.  [NEWLINE] Therefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness. [NEWLINE] Someone who attempts to extract gain for themselves at harm to their overall country is acting unpatriotically, someone who assists another country that is in worse shape instead of assisting their own can still be a patriot, but also recognize significant need in other nations and decide to assist them as well. [NEWLINE]  Whether you support immigration or not, so long as you are supporting what you believe is best for your nation, you are still acting patriotically, and  even if you decide to support another nation you can still be acting patriotically as well so long as you support your nation too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] This is true, but,  I think, supporting the common good is also more important than supporting your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Yes, but the two are often one the same,  especially when you live in a country as large as the U. S. most acts which serve the common good generally support your country. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidTherefore I would say that the antithesis of patriotism is not having a global perspective, but is in fact selfishness<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI would define patriotism quite simply as supporting one's country, but not * necessarily * disparaging others. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
				 {'precision': {'support': 0.6591422121896162, 'agreement': 0.4394904458598726, 'direct_attack': 0.20652173913043478, 'undercutter_attack': 0.19148936170212766, 'partial': 0.30434782608695654}, 'recall': {'support': 0.7881241565452092, 'agreement': 0.35751295336787564, 'direct_attack': 0.15447154471544716, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2222222222222222, 'partial': 0.05511811023622047}, 'f1': {'support': 0.7178856791641058, 'agreement': 0.3942857142857143, 'direct_attack': 0.17674418604651163, 'undercutter_attack': 0.2057142857142857, 'partial': 0.09333333333333332}, 'support': {'support': 741, 'agreement': 193, 'direct_attack': 123, 'undercutter_attack': 162, 'partial': 127}, 'micro_avg': {'precision': 0.5312035661218425, 'recall': 0.5312035661218425, 'f1': 0.5312035661218425, 'support': None}, 'macro_avg': {'precision': 0.36019831699380156, 'recall': 0.31548979741739497, 'f1': 0.31759263970879015, 'support': None}, 'weighted_avg': {'precision': 0.4965242642684195, 'recall': 0.5312035661218425, 'f1': 0.5014628630167265, 'support': None}}
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Actually, most commentators think they didn't show up for a year or two. [NEWLINE] Also,  " inn " is arguably a poor translation. [NEWLINE] It wasn't a hotel that didn't have room for them. [NEWLINE] It was that extended family didn't have a guest room for Joseph's family (  perhaps because of the scandalous nature of Mary's pregnancy?  ). [NEWLINE]  Them being stuck in a barn has nothing to do with Joseph being cheap and everything to do with his family having poor hospitality. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA]Interesting, I was not aware of this perspective, and  certainly a lot can be lost in translation, especially multiple translations over centuries. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidAre we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? <mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Traditionally, in medieval Christian art, there is no consideration of time. [NEWLINE] In other words, events that happen at different points in the narrative are depicted as occuring side-by-side without consideration for * when * and * where * they actually happened. [NEWLINE] For instance, Jesus might be depicted as both a child and an adult in the same image. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  One of the reasons the Italian Renaissance was, well, a * renaissance * was because its painters and artists began presenting things in a more realistic way, like how we might now think of as like a photograph : a specific moment frozen in time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My point is, there is precedent for depicting stories from the Jesus narrative with no consideration for the actual timeline of events,  merely throwing together elements because they are related thematically or tangentially. [NEWLINE]  You're interpretting this as if it is meant to show something " as it happened " when art doesn't always work that way. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] Thanks for the input, I'll give you a delta but this seems to me more or less the same argument from artistic license. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidtraditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidThe problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Are you suggesting that INCREASING the number of weapons would decrease the lethal use of those weapons?  [NEWLINE]  It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris, but  surely tempt or instigate more occurrences in its place as the weapons are that much easier to access and use?  [NEWLINE]  If increasing gun ownership would benefit society, would there be a point where if X number of people owned and carried a gun, there would be no shootings at all?  [NEWLINE]  How do the stats stack up in support of your view?  [NEWLINE]  This seems like a very difficult thing to prove or disprove either way because of the lack of research, but  I'm loathed to suggest increasing gun ownership could be a possible solution, because...  I dunno, they have a reputation for misuse?  [NEWLINE]  Surely, LESS would be better?  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  No I'm not claiming this.  [NEWLINE] Please read again my original post, this time trying to understand it. [NEWLINE]  Distinguish between decreasing and stopping, owning and responsibly owning, laws and culture...  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said It MIGHT help mitigate one instance of shootings, like today's in Paris<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said How do the stats stack up in support of your view? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had [USER0] [NEWLINE] There have been 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Something in the ballpark of 45% of women who have abortions have more than one abortion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] These people would have been raised by their incompetent parents to drain down society, increase crime rates, suck up resources, and generally screw things up. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Various ways to lower a resource negative population would have to be explored, if not because of this 55 million, then because of the next 55 million. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] One possibility is that there would be wars waged to try to kill them all, perhaps even with other countries with similar problems. [NEWLINE] Waging war to purposefully lower population, even with a country facing similar issues, would cost not only resources, but it would also cause political, cultural, and global issues. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] America's innovation and education rankings would be lower. [NEWLINE] Every middle-class child in the country would receive a lower quality education if there were 55 million more around. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( * * Note : * * I'm not trying to hear arguments on the ethics of abortion, its a banal argument that everyone and their mother has had at one point, what I am really fishing for is insight into what the country would look like with those 55 million around. [NEWLINE] Would we adapt to the population and make good use of each of them? ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Was view changed? * * [NEWLINE] Its a complicated issue. [NEWLINE] Without the extra population from abortions, has there been proportionately more immigration to fill labor needs, or are the millions of illegals from Mexico as likely to be so numerous even if there was a higher none-abortion population? [NEWLINE] Doesn't immigration of a working class citizen on such a massive scale cause dissonance in a country more so than it does cultural exchange, meaning that it would have been preferable to have our abortions alive? [NEWLINE] Or are we talking about a population so huge that race and national identity are insignificant, that there is always going to be a huge amount of hostility between different demographics? [NEWLINE] - ( choppy writing, but i'm on 3 hours of sleep and stretched for time, give me a break ) - [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( Side thought : Perhaps the immigration of illegals is lowering the value of blue collar work and makes it harder for the borderline impoverished citizens to provide for their children. [NEWLINE] Its debatable how many women are having abortions due to financial reasons, but surely its a significant number, so how many of these women wouldn't be having financial troubles if there wasn't competition from cheap illegal labor to keep wages lower? [NEWLINE] This holds true even if illegal immigration is an overall plus to the countries value. [NEWLINE] Conclusion : Mexicans are the supreme race, native Americans will go extinct through abortion and then out-breeding.  * no that isn't a serious sentiment, [NEWLINE] i'm just saying, this discussion is abstract enough to go into some weird places and that it is necessary to have a stopping point *  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there is the next question. [NEWLINE] Is a more highly populated and economically productive America today going to result in an America tomorrow that can handle over population problems, or would having a higher population from none-abortion just add on to the problems of a world going to shit? [NEWLINE] Similar : An aborted fetus is likely to have been a less productive person than a never-considered-for-abortion fetus, but in an industrial society, its likely that these abortions would still be more productive than not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Then there was the debate as to whether or not a larger population with less resources per person is more innovative than a smaller one. [NEWLINE]  This is to be considered if one is convinced that having a higher population coming from none-abortions results in a strain for resources in the country. [NEWLINE]  Modern technology like the internet must be considered. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Yes, my view was changed, but not into the polar opposite. [NEWLINE] I am now confused and lost. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * EDIT : * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll be without internet for a few days. [NEWLINE] I may end up returning and responding more but it won't be anytime soon. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This was my first post to CMV. [NEWLINE] I apologize for a few things that I did that could be considered * rude * around here. [NEWLINE] I also see a few times where I got redundant. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thank you all for your arguments. [NEWLINE] This is a very critical place, I hope to learn how to better use it and come here more often. [NEWLINE] I feel I could learn a lot here. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] One thing not calculated in the slightly psychotic weighing of the value of human life as " useful " is the sociological effect of the 55 million just gone : A Zeitgeist wherein 55 million abortions is weighed as good for industry or not, the resulting thinking it good on account of efficiency, as certain citizens look on themselves and others as a figure or livestock. [NEWLINE] The attitude of human value as " what they [potentially] contributed to me/Exxon Mobile " is the spirit of eugenics and genocide, subjects often glorified on reddit.  [NEWLINE] It's the same problem with war : Once killing foreigners is an acceptable/inevitable means to profit and expand, you find that attitudes exposed to such behavior change with it. [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Other countries also build militaries to do so and to " defend " against each other, and its no longer viewed as a hostile or paranoid thing to do because everybody's doing it and so must do it. [ENDQ] [STARTQ] It becomes a recursive loop and generates a hostile attitude towards foreigners and other countries. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] This works on the inverse too. [ENDQ] When we went to the moon, our horizons and view of mankind changed. [NEWLINE] Once we better understood such objects, nature worship definitely changed. [NEWLINE] You'll be hard-pressed to find moon worshipers today, and the " religions of the book " may be going out of style as highly literate people have access to more historical data and the time to translate The Bible, Torah, and Quran in context for themselves. [NEWLINE] Also, it was once normal for religions to kill masses of unbelievers ; now it's seen as wrong, even by the religions themselves. [NEWLINE] The Zeitgeist changes, as people's attitudes adjust to new information and ways of life and problem solving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] This Zeitgeist concept is the same problem with the public school. [NEWLINE] In it, intelligence is reduced to reciting what one is told to a high degree of accuracy and memorization, data treated as " fact " or " fiction " ( in reality, everything is true/untrue depending on it's level of resolution or accuracy ), children are moved through by age, graded literally on the same scale as a meat product, and bells move them around. [NEWLINE] On this, they're declared intelligent or not, and implicitly worthwhile or not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model. [NEWLINE] Good meat or bad meat, instead of people with a variety of skill potential and problems. [NEWLINE] We end up with McEducation literally, with a lot of " product " to be " thrown away " and that seen as okay ; but the worst thing is not that, but the Zeitgeist within society that people should be " grown ", and graded, and that these categories are accurate. [NEWLINE] Consequential attitudes include the idea that information will be bestowed to us like our teachers did, that it's " true " or not and that " truth " is available to us in an absolute way, and that smart people are cooperative. [NEWLINE] Political parties appeal to these learned biases. [NEWLINE] The general attitude among the adult population is " don't think too much ", because it's seen as disruptive, problem-making, and culturally odious, and taking sides on trust is often seen as a good thing. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So with 55 million abortions, you're also treated to relaxed attitudes towards eugenics and genocide, and all the warped views of human value and what a " better place " is that come with it. [NEWLINE] Decisions are give-and-take and has benefits as well as problems. [NEWLINE] You see, there would have certainly been benefits to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against the USSR, and costs too. [NEWLINE] Anybody who denies either is blinded by zeal, and I'm not saying such a strike would have been worth it, only that benefits would exist and it's our job to weigh those against the costs always. [NEWLINE]  If you cannot see the cost of the 55 million abortions, it means that you should immediately change your view so you can experience the other side of your thinking,  which has hijacked your perception and mistaken itself for truth recursively. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] You're mistaking what I believe to be a good outcome as different from what you believe to be a good outcome. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Think America in 1000 years. [NEWLINE] This America faced a sustainable growth rate. [NEWLINE] Imagine this country to be populated by billions of faces. [NEWLINE] Pretend that technology has reached such a point that any human can pursue any passion they wish. [NEWLINE] These Americans can go enjoy the wilderness of a terraformed planet ( or use their immortality to wait until that is possible ), enter a virtual reality program and experience any event by any person in history as if it was true, go see dinosaurs at the zoo, pursue as many doctorates as they'd like, increase or decrease their intelligence, and never have to work a day of their lives to earn such privileges. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Now imagine America in 200 years. [NEWLINE] Babies were created indiscriminately. [NEWLINE] The quality of education regressed and then stagnated to that of the year 1970. [NEWLINE] Even with new technology, having enough drinking water and arable land is becoming an issue. [NEWLINE] Everything is polluted to hell. [NEWLINE] The wealth gap is a factor of ten worse. [NEWLINE] The perception of the value of human life goes to zero. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( I am in no way claiming that either one of those imaginary futures would result from having legal/illegal abortion. [NEWLINE] My point is that a responsible today allows for a better future. [NEWLINE] My illustrations are ridiculous ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Decisions like whether or not the non-existence of 55 million people provides to the greater good have to be faced, such as you said. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your claim is that the conscious acceptance of deaths providing logistical benefits is damaging to our perception of the value of human life. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] That is true, and such sentiment should be properly weighed by someone attempting to assess whether or not these 55 million abortions have had a positive outcome. [NEWLINE] This should not overtake their thinking and drown out the other considerations. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I believe you are in agreement with that. [NEWLINE] However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. [NEWLINE] This is where we disagree.  [NEWLINE] I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also don't think that the connection between poor education tactics and the " don't think too much " mentalities can be drawn between the zeitgeist claims you're making. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is higher, you'll see higher quality education and the available resources for more to be able to think and live as as they'd like. [NEWLINE] If the quality of life is lower, you'll see people working miserable jobs just to be able to eat dinner,  the only way to avoid depression would be to not think too much. [NEWLINE]  Having a low quality of life results in a poor Zeitgeist. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I believe you are in agreement with that. However, you take the Zeitgeist as pretty much the highest consideration. This is where we disagree. I believe in a shittier today for a better tomorrow, such as how our ancestors had miserable and productive lives that ended up with us living to be 80 and fat. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] No, I was only illustrating a hidden and relatable X-factor to get you to open up within your own assumptions and realize [ how many other X-factors might exist, ] ( [URL] ) and to encourage more caution towards unforeseen consequences and butterfly effects. [NEWLINE] I chose this approach because your view is highly cerebral and overconfident, seemingly unconcerned with potential consequence, and repackaging gross oversimplification and naive callous as bright utilitarianism ( no offense ). [NEWLINE] I wanted to offer an example that had to do with people, instead of indulging your quasi-psychotic reasoning. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, psychotic behavior is retarded literally : It comes from a lack of emotional sense and is a developmental disorder. I'm telling you this because you're probably a teen and will grow out of it by interacting with people like you are, and having them challenge you and show disgust. [NEWLINE] Psychotics are developmentally stunted because they're antisocial, even when they're around people, and so they never change their view and only develop a 7-year-old view from a little monster into a big monster. [NEWLINE] That said, giving you the socio-political consequences of 55 million people missing might change your view, but the stupid and shallow premises would remain untouched. [NEWLINE] You might adjust your facts, but not expand your perspective. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] See, the reason people are highly sensitive [emotionally] is the same reason you'd turn up the sensitivity dial of a camera, microphone, or any other sensor : Because you're concerned you'll miss something, and are aware of the dangers of missing something. [NEWLINE] The mind and emotions operate like extremely complex equipment. [NEWLINE] This is why some people are very squeamish ; myself not included. [NEWLINE] Contrarily, when a person is very confident, it's [almost never because they're on a higher tier of information or understanding ] ( [URL] %E2%80%93Kruger_effect ), but because they don't even know that they don't know. [NEWLINE] In the case of cold utility, often peddled by teens as very novel because life and the self seems very simple to them, because they've such a low tier of contact with the world that it can look simple from a distance. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It's why we recruit teens into the military. [NEWLINE] They're very easy to trick and convince to shoot a guy in a field for wearing different clothes without asking a lot of questions or thinking too hard about consequences. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, that's why I gave that explanation, and you didn't anticipate it, but thought you did, didn't you? [NEWLINE] You said I gave the Zeitgeist explanation because it was my best, but it was really tailored to challenge your reasoning style. [NEWLINE] You probably don't see yourself as having a predictable reasoning style. [NEWLINE] This is the problem with X-factors and complexity. [NEWLINE]  You don't know what you don't know, you didn't know you didn't know my motivation, and you don't know that the 55 million abortions were a good thing, or what interests were operating in the establishment of them, or the consequences. [NEWLINE] So far,  the consequences are extremely negative for your generation. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Essentially, i'm emotionally retarded, and instead of giving into my nature and letting my thought process be masturbated from a more standard answer, you're subjecting me to therapy by trying to illustrate that such views are had by inferior humans? [NEWLINE] My inferior mind must be shown new views in order for me to see how wrong my initial view is? ( teens tricked into joining the military, developmentally stunted, antisocial. [NEWLINE] These illustrations very clearly show that you are attempting for me to change my view based on your argument that I am inferior. ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for your concluding paragraph, it is complete nonsense. [NEWLINE] There is an assumption every other sentence with the remaining sentences being filled with assertions that you have not been backed with well-founded arguments. [NEWLINE] You completely circumvented every single debate being had in this thread and proceeded to ejaculate your rather arrogant assumptions all over the place</s> [USER1]  saidThe many nuances of intelligence, higher forms of intelligence, varieties of people, and bigger issues like antisocial personality disorder and social skills, are virtually ignored during the developmental period for the " efficient " cattle model<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidPolitical parties appeal to these learned biases
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I have contemplated this since I was a young teen and often made me wonder why so many people are concerned with leaving a " legacy ". [NEWLINE] If existence ( from your perspective ) lies solely on your consciousness thenafter you die it doesn't matter what you left because it no longer exists since you cannot experience it.  [NEWLINE] In a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist.  [NEWLINE] This of course is assuming that death is an elimination of existence which is beyond what anybody truly knows. [NEWLINE] It is a bit depressing but can also be quite liberating as you can free yourself from society's many irrational norms and expectations.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for things having meaning, from this standpoint you can create your own meaning.  [NEWLINE] May as well enjoy life while you temporarily exist.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Your bleak view reminds me of the Queen line from Bohemian Rhapsody, " I don't wanna die. I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all. " [NEWLINE] Never being born is essentially the same as being dead,  you just never have the conscious mind to experience the fear of contemplating it.  [NEWLINE]  I guess it comes down to what you think is worse. Never experiencing life or living in fear of death.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I want to give you a [DELTA], so here you go. [NEWLINE] You've been most successful because you changed the " depressed " part of my view, albeit only a bit. [NEWLINE] Enjoying life EVEN THOUGH I temporarily exist will be my new mindset. [NEWLINE] I don't know if I'll be able to get there, but we'll see. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidafter you die it doesn't matter what you left<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidIn a metaphysical sense you could argue that we essentially never exist. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(11, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, IQ is not considered to be a good or accurate measure of overall intellect. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It may also be important to note that your system isn't only difficult to implement like you point out, it's also in direct conflict with how things actually work.  [NEWLINE] More intelligent people tend to have less children than do the more uneducated.  [NEWLINE] There are multiple reasons for this, more intelligent people tend to be more busy with careers, etc.  [NEWLINE] Lastly you must recognize that the IQ test is a standardized test.  [NEWLINE] This means that even if we went really extreme and killed everyone with an IQ under 80..... that would change nothing.  [NEWLINE]  The average IQ will still be measured in the same way,  the lowest scores will be assigned the lower numbers and the average will be the same. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I mentioned that. [NEWLINE] (  " for want of better measure of intelligence "  ) [NEWLINE] I would love a better measure of intelligence.  [NEWLINE] [Some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too... ( [URL] )  [NEWLINE] So, maybe a complex way to combine them. [NEWLINE] Like a total of all of them.  [NEWLINE] Idc. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I know about number two... [NEWLINE] I'm not proposing we implement it. [NEWLINE] In a perfect world, sure.  [NEWLINE] But at least my theory limits the offspring of less-intelligent people. [NEWLINE] Less intelligent- less babies than contributors- less " less intelligent people " ( and that would always be the case... )  [NEWLINE] I completely understand your distaste with the IQ test.  [NEWLINE] Again, I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence. [NEWLINE] ( better than SAT scores, right?  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And when the IQ test is adjusted, we would adjust the cutoff rate for " da murder " if we were to take that route in the first place.  [NEWLINE] ( instead of killing lower than 80, it would be killing lower than like 50 or whatever ) [NEWLINE] The " number of mental retardation " would be adjusted from lower than 70 to whatever it would be, too,  so I don't see your point there. [NEWLINE]  In total, everyone's IQ would be x points higher and so the human race would be x much smarter...  [NEWLINE]  My route would be a slower, more ethical way to do it.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Separating intelligence into categories * is * a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. [NEWLINE] A brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories.  [NEWLINE] The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it.  [NEWLINE] It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand.  [NEWLINE] It is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I only used the IQ test in my example because so far it is ( seemingly ) the most available measure of intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  This is not a good reason to use anything.  I know it sucks but I have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] Perhaps, but if we summed it, future generations would be on average smarter than past ones.  [NEWLINE] If we valued and weighted the categorical intelligences... Perhaps a brilliant mathematician would end up being ( weighted ) almost equal to a well rounded guy.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence ( Pass down mathy skills of father and kinesthetic skills of mother or whatever ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] ( The point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. It is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Eh, maybe we don't fully understand it, but we know that through breeding we can increase it, right?  [NEWLINE] Just because we don't understand every minute aspect of it doesn't mean we can't recognize what parts are positive and how to increase it.  [NEWLINE] Well hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in a way that forces you to do anything except stop having children after you reached the point where any more and you'd be hurting future generation's intelligence.  [NEWLINE] Let me clarify! You misinterpreted, I wouldn't advocate using the actual IQ scale as the starting measure of doing this at all, I used it as an example of an intelligence measure, and  I meant most available as the " most available/recognizable example of intelligence "  [NEWLINE]  I do not want our current IQ scale to be used in any way even close to this.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I think you are still oversimplifying it.  [NEWLINE] And no you can't just increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of the population. [NEWLINE] Since we do not know the one to one correlations between a complex variety of genes and gene interactions and the vaguely defined intelligence that they produce you cannot feasibly do this.  [NEWLINE] What if someone with a low intellect ( however the hell you measure it ) and high intellect want to breed?  [NEWLINE] Also, only one of my parents finished high school.  [NEWLINE] I am their 6th child.  [NEWLINE] I have a Masters degree.  [NEWLINE] ( See my user history for reference ). [NEWLINE] We don't know all of the complex genetic and environmental elements that go into intellect to do anything remotely like what you are describing.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] I also would like to add, hopefully if we learn more about genetics and genetic engineering we would be able to selectively breed intelligence [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] I, like some of the other commentators here, find the hypothetical game to be intellectually dishonest.  [NEWLINE]  The " Yeah but what if... " thing just isn't going to fly.  [NEWLINE]  It is not conducive to a productive conversation of this sort.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Well if someone of low intellect wanted to breed with someone of high intellect, their children count would be limited by the lower children count.  [NEWLINE] Later in life, if higher intellect person wants more children, they can, only if they don't have a genetic contributor from someone who already fulfilled their amount?  [NEWLINE] I think you could increase intelligence through controlling the breeding rights of a population.  [NEWLINE] I don't think its feasible, though...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] We don't know all, true, but we know some, which should be enough to increase intelligence. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Maybe the hypothetical game is annoying and not productive, but its not intellectually dishonest...  [NEWLINE] I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have posted this topic.  [NEWLINE] I posted with the actual intent of proving that a hypothetical situation could have eugenics be good.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * shrug * in the end, are we agreeing that [NEWLINE] 1.  Eugenics is not realistically feasible [NEWLINE] 2. [NEWLINE]  But in a hypothetical world where it is feasible, it would be a good thing [NEWLINE]? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked.  [NEWLINE] That's basically all you've said. [NEWLINE] Which is basically like saying if unicorns were real, they would be real.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Congrats on your degree, but degrees are no more a measure of intelligence than IQ ( which kind of is, meaning degrees kind of are ) [ENDQ] [NEWLINE]  No [NEWLINE].  I think you'll find someone who has a degree in topic X is a much better indicator of their holistic intellectual ability with respect to category X than a simple reductive IQ test.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Yes and yes and sorry : / [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Edit : My view was changed when Namemedickles pointed out how basically my argument depended on changing everything about how something could be implemented to the point of where it is impossible [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] Eugenics would work if eugenics worked. That's basically all you've said. [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI mentioned that<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidLike a total of all of them. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(16, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Okay, I'm talking about making the human race smarter, forever. [NEWLINE] Intelligence is at least partially genetic andtherefore passed down by parents, yes? [Yes. ] ( [URL]. com/? articles. view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/ ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So, what if, instead of killing off the less-intelligent people ( I'm against killing.  [NEWLINE] Of most things. ) [NEWLINE] we just limit offspring? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, we could use the IQ scale ( for want of a better intelligence measure ) to determine the number of offspring a person should be able to genetically contribute to.  [NEWLINE] Like, round the IQ to the nearest multiple of 50, then divide by 50, and that's the number of offspring you're allowed to create.  [NEWLINE] So someone with near average intelligence ( near 100 IQ, 75-124 ) would have their IQ rounded to 100 and then divided by 50 to make 2 offspring.  [NEWLINE] The total offspring is presumably equal to the number of people who contributed to it.  [NEWLINE] A man and a woman with average IQ can have two children ( not each. ) and sustain their population.  [NEWLINE] Conversely, really above average IQs of 125-174 can contribute genetically towards 3 children... and so on.  [NEWLINE] This would eventually make the human race smarter, and therefore more likely to survive and advance the human race.  [NEWLINE] I know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do, but I'm just looking at the concept. [NEWLINE] I know the IQ test has its faults and every policy can be abused... I know all that. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Exceptions would be made when you accidentally have twins which causes you to go over your limit, or etc. [NEWLINE] ( If a mother can make 2, and has twins, she can't make more, but if she already has one and has twins after one which makes 3, we're not gonna kill one ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Perhaps if you have a major, heritable health issue your IQ has 25 subtracted from it before being rounded?  [NEWLINE] Or maybe weighted differently, like extremely high chance of cancer ( almost 100 percent or something ) takes off more... Something like that.  [NEWLINE]  Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 "  [NEWLINE]  I wouldn't mind a smarter human race...  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : * * I am trying to argue that this process, if not abused, if followed by the people, and if we found an increasingly accurate measure of intelligence, would be ultimately a good thing to advance the human race. * * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT 2 : " * * It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. * * " -nikeson [NEWLINE] I suppose that's true, now.... [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] It looks to me like you've made so many exceptions to your main view that you aren't looking to have your view changed. [NEWLINE] I'd like to talk about the title of your post, but  if you have to make so many exceptions to your view, then it seems you already know it's incorrect. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * applies aloe to burn * [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] Edit : Delta because nikeson proved that my argument has changed so much from my main point that it really just proves my argument wrong. [NEWLINE] Sorry for not explaining [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidI know this would be a bitch to implement and it's near impossible to actually do<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  said Much better than " Kill off those with IQ less than 80 " 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(14, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. [USER0] [NEWLINE] This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. [NEWLINE] The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. [NEWLINE] Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. [NEWLINE] Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. [NEWLINE] Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. [NEWLINE] Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. [NEWLINE] After all, why did they stay so long anyway?  [NEWLINE] It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. [NEWLINE]  Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. [NEWLINE] (  Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.  ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] MERRY CHRISTMAS! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Aren't Mary and Joseph, two holy people, especially perfect virgin Mary, both Jews? Wasn't Jesus a Jew??  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but  Joseph was just a regular Jew without the same kind of holiness as the other two.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Okay, nix Joseph, but the point remains that the son of god and his holy mother were Jews, so  I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Isn't the characterization of Jews as " Christ-killers " rooted in antisemitism?  [NEWLINE]  Because that's a part of the Easter story even though it was technically a Jew being crucified on Good Friday.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  said I wouldn't call a story about them antisemitic even if the villains in the story are also Jewish. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  said the son of god and his holy mother were Jews
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: There is only one "right" way to play the Mass Effect series (spoilers) [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * for title clarification, I am NOT referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post * [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] The Mass Effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time. [NEWLINE] Now that my bias is clear, I want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below IS the reason I'd like my view changed. [NEWLINE] I apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass. [NEWLINE] Needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who've played the series, but if you're not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] So here's the brunt of my CMV : If you let any one of your squadmates die, ( unless their deaths are unavoidable ) you are : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] a. ) incompetent [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Talk to squadmates semi-regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and -for Gaben's sake- put some points into persuade ( you Neanderthal! ), and don't make stupid ( YES STUPID ) choices during the final ME2 mission. [NEWLINE] It's really not that difficult with a little common sense!  [NEWLINE] RNG killed Mordin during the suicide mission? [NEWLINE] RELOAD A DAMN SAVE. [NEWLINE] It's worth it dammit!  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] b. ) rushing/missing the damn point of the game [NEWLINE] Don't give me that " I don't have time " crap ; you bought an RPG!  [NEWLINE] You're already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci-fi universe you paid good money for? [NEWLINE] You get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] c. ) unfit to fairly criticize the series [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Firstly, I want to say that I do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was ( see the original Kapysharn plot outline for details ). [NEWLINE] However despite its shortcomings, I believe that the real heart of the Mass Effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters. [NEWLINE] With only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of Shepard's crew are interesting, fleshed-out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] For example, ( SPOILERS ME3 ) seeing Wrex grow from a mere gun-for-hire in ME1 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the Genophage-free Krogan in ME3 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  [NEWLINE] Similarly, the leap of faith Shepard takes when trusting Legion on Rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the Quarians and Geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  [NEWLINE] Without these experiences, yeah, Mass Effect 3 didn't live up to the hype. [NEWLINE] How could it? [NEWLINE] It's such a hollow victory watching Wreav royally screw things up, or watching Tali commit suicide.  [NEWLINE] In my opinion,  it's a complete waste of the player's time going about it that way.  [NEWLINE] Regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, I believe  there is one right way to play Mass Effect : a completionist run where NO ONE dies.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I need help guys. [NEWLINE] It's getting to the point where I can't even discuss Mass Effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet. [NEWLINE] Hell, I've put one of my friends off playing the games because I was backseat-gaming during his playthrough. [NEWLINE] I WANT to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it's different for me when it comes to Mass Effect in particular. [NEWLINE] Please, CMV! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Just wanted to say that I don't take issue with making an intentionally flawed Shepard to see what it looks like. It's just I feel that some who were more critical of the game could've missed out on an important and fulfilling character later on because I a mistake, and that could have potentially negatively color their views and the public perception of the game as a whole. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Bah, apologies! I'm rambling, it's late, but I look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing! Thanks guys! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Or maybe you just like plots and characters and different stories. [NEWLINE] I'd say my approach was different -if the material is in the game, it's there for a purpose.  [NEWLINE] It was there to be seen by players and to be experienced by them. And sometimes, tragedies are more fun than victories.  [NEWLINE] I did do the completionist run!  [NEWLINE] I had a closeted gay paragon Shepard because I thought it was hilarious and he eventually shacked up with Kaidan, saved the world, let no one die, then picked destroy ending because why not.  [NEWLINE] It went - well, okay, I guess.  [NEWLINE] However, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches.  [NEWLINE] I was * pissed as hell * at the [ME3 ending] ( [URL]. png ) ( and I don't think, as another fan, you'll need me to elaborate on why - I loved those characters and I hated how little involvement they had in how things went, and the ending was a total slap in the face to the player and all their work until that point ) so I thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense.  [NEWLINE] Where an ending that's a fuck you to everything Shepard's been trying comes as the topping of a fuck you in the chain of everything that Shepard's done. [NEWLINE] Where it isn't a betrayal of all the themes that have been brought up so far but the logical extension of them instead. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] And so I made the world's giantest asshole most self-justifying Shepard. [NEWLINE] And if you ask me? [NEWLINE] It's about as far as you can get from * your * completionist Shepard, but taken with ME3's ending, I think it makes for a far better story. [NEWLINE] A renegade lady who wasn't * xenophobic * as much as * very * pro-human, straight but distrusted Jacob and uninterested in any of the alien male love interests ( and who killed Kaidan in ME1, woops ).  [NEWLINE] Who was alone from start to end in a quest that only she seemed to really believe in.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Trust me, when you play a character who's a lot more of an asshole but who's a really * determined * asshole, who keeps losing stuff and who has people die but who convinces herself that it's * worth * something, that her mission has to be worth all that, who is willing to make sacrifices that she believes are necessary ( when you, the player, know that they aren't ) - the 'bad ends' in ME3 make for a fantastic experience.  [NEWLINE] It's basically the game going 'well Shepard, you fucked up, and this is what you get for it'.  [NEWLINE] They're not hollow at all, they're fantastic.  [NEWLINE] The entire game and story turns into Shepard realizing too late that things could've been different and that the state of the universe going to shit is on * them *.  They lose everyone who trusted them in some way or another, and * hurt * through it all. [NEWLINE] The finale of ME3 goes from a completely unsatisfying throughly annoying ending that ignored the themes of choice and self-determination that had been going on through the game into one final, desperate chance to make it right, instead.  [NEWLINE] Whatever Shepard picks, I felt a lot more satisfied with * that * story as a whole instead of the 'no one dies' run where it didn't really matter that no one died and that they worked so fucking hard for that - just pick choice A, B or C and that's your ending for you.  [NEWLINE] Shitty failure Shepard's ending was also a dialogue choice, but that just underscored that she'd burned and destroyed anything else around her - that no one else would stand by her side, that everyone was dead and this was all she had left. [NEWLINE] To me, that kind of ending fit much better with the way I'd played her, and I felt far more vicious satisfaction putting that sort of character through it.  [NEWLINE] Every other * possible * ending that could've been, she'd gone and wrecked through her own shitty actions.  [NEWLINE] Losing all the choices at the end made * sense *, this time, in the context of her experiences.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Anyway, I still enjoyed the everyone-lives playthrough, but I'd say that the 'everyone dies' route, seeing as it * is * there, also was meant to be played and in fact works pretty well as an overall story where Shepard is the one that's screwed up the whole way. [NEWLINE] I don't think of it as * me * killing of those characters off, it's whatever Shepard I'm playing in that particular runthrough that's doing it - a vicious, angry, bitter and ultimately futile Shepard.  [NEWLINE] The emotional payoff on finishing the series went from 'are you serious is that actually the ending, the fuck' to 'HAHA YES, Shepard fucking deserved that, that was * great * '.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] TL ; DR : The right way to play it is to experience everything that is there, and then figure out what makes you the most satisfied.  [NEWLINE]  For me, that wasn't a completionist run.  [NEWLINE] I can play as'saves everyone' Shepard and also as 'total stupid asshole' Shepard - neither of them are me-the-player, they're just the main characters in their own stories. [NEWLINE]  The one I find the most hilarious and interesting is the one whose story makes the most sense as a whole, and that's the one where Shepard totally fails save anyone, including herself.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * * Edit : * * Also, OP, if you're complaining that people who let companions die miss out on content later in the game, you should consider that as a person who played through ME several times ( these weren't actually my only Shepards, I have also tried every romance because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about ), I've actually experienced far more of it than you have. [NEWLINE] The'but you see less of it if you do this other route' ignores that you can just * play the game again *. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Δ [NEWLINE] Thanks for your post! I suppose I hadn't really though to consider the complexities of a " shitty-Shep " in relation to the flaws of the game itself. [NEWLINE] The absence of certain characters is valid too, even though losing squadmembers would be more somber than I'd personally prefer. [NEWLINE] Almost poetic in a way, but I think I'll stick to going the long way around if I'm going to invest any time in another ( one of at least five runs since it came out, btw ) full Mass Effect runthrough. ; ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I suppose I should have mentioned that this would be in the case of a person doing a " final " canon run for THEIR Shep, and making those decisions on who to save and what to do. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidHowever, after that, I wanted some real emotional punches. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidI thought you know what, I want a Shepard where this kind of ending makes sense. 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: I think the Paris shooting makes a good case for culture of responsible gun ownership any carrying. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Thinking about today's news : [BBC] ( [URL] ), [Wikipedia] ( [URL] ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I think France is in a tough spot in how to react to this.  [NEWLINE] There would be even stronger calls for an anti-islam and anti-immigration policies.  [NEWLINE] These event reminds people that they cannot depend on protection by government.  [NEWLINE] I think it would be a shame to allow the many, who are afraid more then anything, to be swayed by xenophobic nationalists ( which might have been the goal of the attack anyway ).  [NEWLINE] I think this, regardless of whether the weapons used by the attackers were owned legally, makes a good case for promoting a culture of a reasonable gun ownership and carrying.  [NEWLINE] Say if 1 out of 5 people carried a gun with them, was well trained in its use and tested in his responsibility to prevent its misuse, and society upheld the value of these people as protectors, it would benefit the society more the the current state of legislature and culture of gun ownership in most of European countries. [NEWLINE]  I also think this would be much better then increase in police numbers and rights as policemen are a very homogeneous group trained to stick together and the danger of even deepening the " not one of us " ( pack ) mentality and escalation of " police state ". [NEWLINE] Change my view. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] PS : I am not here to talk about USA and its gun problems. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] EDIT : Awarded a delta to a comment which didn't refute this idea but led me to change my view that it would be best realized with paralyzing weapons rather then guns : [URL] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say you're a drug addict and due to your addiction you can't hold down a job, are really strung out and resort to one of the stupidest ways to make $100 for your next fix which is mugging people on the street.  [NEWLINE] Not getting the money is not an optionbecause you're desperate. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If one in 10, 000 people are carrying firearms, do you take your chances and try to get someone to hand over their cash without shooting someone or do you kill them outright and steal their valuables off their corpse?  [NEWLINE] How does that decision change when the odds are 1 in 5?  [NEWLINE] Remember, you're an addict and not getting the money is not an option.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you rear end a guy.  [NEWLINE] You pull over and the guy is really mad and he gets out of his car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that the guy is carrying as well.  [NEWLINE] When do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 1. [NEWLINE] When he's angry and yelling at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 2. When he reaches into his jacket where his holster might be?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 3. [NEWLINE] After you see the gun?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 4. [NEWLINE] After he points it at you?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] 5. [NEWLINE] After he starts shooting?  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You're carrying and you just picked up your brand new car from the dealer and while you were at the stoplight some asshole that was obviously texting while driving rear ends you in your brand new car. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] You lose your temper and get out of your brand new car yelling up a storm.  [NEWLINE] You notice after a bit of yelling that the guy is carrying and he has observed that you are as well and is scared. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Do you wait until you're sure he has decided to use his firearm to act?  or do you act first because by the time you're sure he is going to draw his firearm, you won't have time to act before he shoots you?  [NEWLINE] The only reason this stuff doesn't happen all the time is because we can make the reasonable assumption that a person we are having a conflict with is unarmed.  [NEWLINE] As soon as it becomes a reasonable assumption, immediately escalating a conflict to deadly force starts being the best option.  [NEWLINE]  I've worked in customer service and have been yelled at by strangers more often than anyone should have.  [NEWLINE]  If I lived in a society where most people were carrying firearms, I would have had to ask myself " Is this person angry enough to kill me? because if I wait to find out for sure I'll already be dead " way more often than I'd like.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Scenario 1 : I don't think this decision changes if you are comfortable killing for moneyyou kill for money if you can get away with it. [NEWLINE] Scenario 2 : When he starts to pulling out a gun you try to get cover, when he starts aiming at you you draw to fire. [NEWLINE] Scenario 3 : The known rule would be only to draw gun to shoot and who is aiming at you is aiming at you to shoot so you are in right to defend yourself. [NEWLINE] If you are unsure of someone's intentions you should get cover and  as soon he notices that and doesn't intend to kill you he should make this well known to you as  he doesn't you to shoot him either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] You'd likely be dead in scenarios 2 and 3.  [NEWLINE] This isn't the movies where you duck bullets and dive behind a table or something.  [NEWLINE] By the time they have their hand on their gun you have maybe 2 seconds, and by the time they start aiming it at you, you have a fraction of one.  [NEWLINE] There is a reason why police, when they have reason to believe that someone is armed have their guns already drawn.  [NEWLINE]  That shit happens fast, and reactive speed isn't fast enough.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] As for scenario 1,  once you remove the non-lethal option, the lethal one gets a lot more comfortable. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] Yes, but I don't see how you intend to CMV with the scenarios 2 and 3. [NEWLINE] I don't see them as very likely as nobody is going to draw a concealed gun when not intending to kill.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] With scenario 1 I would expect the effect would be that the still thinking criminals would change to some other safer crime as their chances of getting shot would also increase. [NEWLINE] It would still be illegal to kill a robber so  I don't think some of them would start killing (  thus being legal to kill in defense ). [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] Of course you intend to kill the person if you draw your weapon, if you can reasonably assume that they have a weapon, you can't wait for them to draw theirs before you decide to defend yourself if you want to leave alive. [NEWLINE] All you know in all three scenarios is that someone you are in conflict with probably has a gun and there is a significant chance they will use it.  [NEWLINE] If you don't have reasonable cause to believe someone is armed because very few people have CCWs then things like letting the guy you just rear ended blow off steam becomes a reasonable option because he likely can't kill you within in a few seconds. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  If 1 in 5 people can kill you in seconds being impolite gets deadly very quickly.  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] WellI don't think so,  people with concealed guns don't shoot even if they see someone has a gun too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidWhen do you reach for your holster to draw your weapon and when do you fire it? <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidAfter you see the gun? 
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  said items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away. <mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidthat's more a failure of the system than the system itself
Rel Type: tensor(4, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  * No * theorem is " proof "!  [NEWLINE] Theorems are explanations * of * facts - and it's * facts * that prove or disprove theorems.  [NEWLINE] Darwinian Theory doesn't prove evolution to be true - the facts in the real world ( such as examples of fossils and stratigraphy and DNA etc ) prove the Theory to be true.  [NEWLINE] Ultimately the proof/disproof of the efficiency/inefficiency of Capitalism/Communism must come from the comparison and evaluation of historical before and after facts e. g.  East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Iron Rice Bowl China versus Free Market China.  [NEWLINE]  The facts definitively disprove SVT!  [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  I can't get wikibot to do it's stuff, but here : [URL] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidwaste has to be produced in order for the system to function<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidthey produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(12, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Your point is predicated on the assumption that something is pointless if it doesn't last forever. [NEWLINE] I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to this conclusion. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Imagine reading a book that, once finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] That is what life is like. [NEWLINE] Reading the book is ULTIMATELY pointless. [NEWLINE]  Because it is erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Life is pointless in a similar manner. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] I wouldn't consider it pointless if I derived pleasure from reading it at the time. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  I mean if you really believe that everything that does not last forever is pointless, why do you do anything?  Why not sit in a corner and stare at a wall until you die?  [NEWLINE]  I would guess that it's because you derive pleasure from certain things in life and that you pursue these things just like everyone else does. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] My fear is thatpursuing those things is irrational, that since death is coming and will erase all experience regardless,  I might as well go ahead and die. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  Especially if there is more pain or dull moments than pleasure in life, why not just die? [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE]  Why is it irrational to pursue something pleasurable that will not provide pleasure of an infinite duration?  [NEWLINE]  That seems like an arbitrary condition to apply to the value of pursuing pleasurable things.  [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidIt makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidTo me, it is as if my life had never happened
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(17, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s>CMV: Surplus Value Theorem is definitive proof that capitalism is an inefficient system. [USER0] [NEWLINE] As I understand it, and crudely explained, SVT says that in an economic system that lets people hire other people for labour, waste has to be produced in order for the system to function. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Example : Consider a society of 101 people : 100 workers and 1 boss.  [NEWLINE] The boss owns the factory where the workers work, and they produce, say, MLP dolls that everyone wants to buy. [NEWLINE] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces, and a worker produces 1 doll a day. [NEWLINE] At the end of the day, the boss has 100 dolls, worth £1000 and has paid out £500. [NEWLINE] Wanting to make a profit on the dolls, the boss then sells the dolls for £10 each.  [NEWLINE] She is now trying to sell £1000 worth of dolls, but the only people available to sell to are the workers, who's total funds are £500. [NEWLINE] No matter how they rearrange the money between them, they will be unable to buy more than £500 worth of the dolls, and so the rest are waste inherent to the system and a direct result of the boss wanting to make profit.  [NEWLINE] This example then scales up to the whole world when you throw in multiple bosses and lots more workers but the basic idea is the same : if  each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce so that their boss can profit, then  items that cannot be sold must still be produced and thrown away.  [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] The boss pays each of her workers £5 for each doll that the worker produces [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] Most people aren't paid on commission, sothis isn't really a good example, but I think I get where you're going with it.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [STARTQ] if each worker is being paid less than the price of the things they produce [ENDQ] [NEWLINE] But the money doesn't just disappear.  [NEWLINE] For one thing, you're neglecting the janitor who is necessary to keep the factory functioning ( and presumably gets paid ) but doesn't " produce " anything.  [NEWLINE] You're also neglecting that when this system scales up you need to include the boss buying things.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Since whatever profit the boss makes goes back into the system as they spend money, there should be at all times enough money in the system to cover the value of what it produced. [NEWLINE] This value may not be the price being charged for the thing, and that's where supply and demand are involved. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'm not going to deny that sometimes ( or a lot of the time ) the boss just hoards their extra money and doesn't re-inject it, but that's more a failure of the system than the system itself. [NEWLINE] The same goes for when something is priced above its market value, it won't sell and will be waste, but that's because the seller overpriced it, not because it was doomed to be waste as soon as it was made.  [NEWLINE] No ideal system is really going to be inefficient, its the real ones that have problems.  [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] If you mean to say that real-life capitalism is inefficient, then  no one is going to dispute you, but I will point out that  it's the most efficient real system we have. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [DELTA] [NEWLINE] That makes a lot of sense! [NEWLINE] Thank you! I can accept that it would be a wasteless system if there were multiple factories and the boss spent all of their money!  [NEWLINE] I can definitely think of other bits of inefficiency but that wasn't the question so nevermind! : ) [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER1]  saidthis isn't really a good example<mask><mask><mask> [USER1]  saidMost people aren't paid on commission
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
Prompt: <s> CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [USER0] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] * Note : Please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post. [NEWLINE] I am not religious. [NEWLINE] Thank you. [NEWLINE] ALSO : By " meaningless, " I mean " meaningless " to the person who is doing the dying. [NEWLINE] To the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] CMV. [NEWLINE] Assumingthere is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die. [NEWLINE] Death is the great eraser. [NEWLINE] Living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory. [NEWLINE] It is comparable to that, too. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] It makes no difference if I, a 23 year old, die now or live until I am 100 and die. [NEWLINE] Either way, after my brief spark of existence I become nothingness. [NEWLINE] Not only do I remember nothing ; I AM nothing. [NEWLINE] To me, it is as if my life had never happened. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] I'll put it another way. [NEWLINE] Imagine the time before you were born. [NEWLINE] Have you remembered it yet? [NEWLINE] Of course not. [NEWLINE] You didn't exist. [NEWLINE] This is the state that we return to after death--a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth. [NEWLINE] When I die, I return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and I return to it permanently. I might as well have never lived. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] To anticipate a few responses : [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 1 ) Helping others doesn't matter. [NEWLINE] They will die too. [NEWLINE] And then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat-death. [NEWLINE] Even if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless. [NEWLINE] For I will be dead and won't know what I did, and once they die, they won't know either. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE]  ( 2 ) Attaining fame doesn't matter and doesn't truly make me " immortal. "  [NEWLINE] I'll be dead, and again, death is nothingness. [NEWLINE] Thus, I won't be around to enjoy my fame. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] ( 3 ) Enjoying the moment is possible, but  doesn't make life have a point. [NEWLINE] For  once I die, all memories and all point is gone. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Please change my view from this depressing sentiment. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] What if time itself is an illusion, and we really do live forever?  [NEWLINE] Consider a novel.  [NEWLINE] As you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end. [NEWLINE] But does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book?  [NEWLINE] Or does the book continue to exist, with it's words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact?  [NEWLINE]  " Now " is * the page you are reading at this moment *. [NEWLINE] But  just because there are pages you've already read, or pages you have yet to read, doesn't mean those pages don't exist. [NEWLINE]  And all those pages will continue to exist, even after you've finished your book. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER0] [NEWLINE]  Most interesting point so far.  [NEWLINE] Thank you! [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] [USER1] [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Andthis view is supported by physics and what we know of it. [NEWLINE] Time isn't " real " in the same sense that we experience it. [NEWLINE] We are simply at one point along a path, and that's the " now ". [NEWLINE] All the other points in time exist as much as the current point in time, however. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] Let's say I travel from home to the grocery store :  I leave my apartment, go down the elevator, out on the street, past the cigar shop, past the empty parking lot, and finally to the store. * [NEWLINE]  Now * I'm at the store, but did my apartment, my elevator, the street I walked on, the cigar shop, and the empty parking lot cease to exist simply because I'm not there * right now *?  [NEWLINE]  Of course not. [NEWLINE] [NEWLINE] </s> [USER0]  saidHelping others doesn't matter<mask><mask><mask> [USER0]  saidEven if 1, 000, 000 people were helped by me
Rel Type: tensor(0, device='cuda:0')
Number of global tokens: tensor(13, device='cuda:0')
